Theoretical Perspectives on Education - Essay Example

? Theoretical Perspectives on Education April 16, Theoretical Perspectives on Education Education is a very important social institution in our society. It plays an extremely important role in the socialization of the young in the society. Due to its increasing importance due to the imposition of compulsory education, education is now discussed in detail by the perspectives. The role of education is important and it helps us understand the behavior of the young in the society. Functionalist Perspective Emile Durkheim has been extremely important as far as sociology of education is concerned. He emphasized on the moral role of education in the socialization of the children for them to become a part of the society. The main purpose of education according to Durkheim was the development of social solidarity. This was carried out in a way that the collective culture was taught to the children of the society in school. The role was to create a bridge between individualism and collective sharing. For this Durkheim explains two forms of solidarity: mechanical solidarity and organic solidarity. Mechanic solidarity was a characteristic of pre-industrial societies with the absence of division of labor. On the other hand organic solidarity was a part of industrial societies where there is division of labor and interdependence on each other. (www.sociology.org.uk ) Durkheim further elaborates that education has two basic functions. Firstly, it is the education itself to train the students for their future roles. The other role is to create social solidarity and cohesion in the society. Functionalism as a sociological perspective evolved mostly in America. It was developed by American Sociologists like Talcott Parsons and Davis and Moore between the 1930s and 1960s. The central role in their works was to identify the role of education in the society. Talcott Parsons added to the ideas of Durkheim further explaining that as the institutions in the society had specialized family has lost its function of education and not it has become an entirely different aspect of sociological study. The Davis and Moore thesis (“Some Principles of Stratification”, 1945) is that social stratification represents a mechanism through which those who are most able and talented intellectually are allocated work roles that offer the highest rewards in terms of income, power, status and so forth. This is seen to be because the adult roles that are seen to be the most functionally important must be filled by the most able, capable and competent members of society. Talent as we all know are unequally distributed and different people have different areas and different levels of expertise. Therefore, the most talented people are allocated to the most important roles in the society- roles which are extremely important for its proper functioning. This leads to the idea of meritocratic society. The importance of a particular position or job in the society depends on the level of expertise and the skills and length of time dedicated to gain that expertise. For example a brain surgeon needs more skill and time required to train for their task as compared to a nurse. Therefore, the amount of work put in should get an equitable reward (Kirby, 2000). Functionalists have been criticized relating to their explanations of education. Firstly, they are criticized for their assumption that all the children are on level ground. However, this is not the case as some children enter the school with a strong background equipped with cultural capital which includes language, confidence and manners. Children are “sifted and sorted” in schools that may take little account of their levels of intelligence. In this respect, there seems to be no guarantee that the people who achieve the highest levels of qualification are necessarily the “most able” in our society. The best may not fit into the system of education but it does not mean that they are not capable enough. Prominent examples can be of Albert Einstein and Thomas Alva Edison. Finally, although Davis and Moore characterize social stratification as a kind of “benign influence” on the education system, Marxists such as Bowles and Gintis (“Schooling in Capitalist America”) characterize it as something rather more destructive. In this respect, we should be aware that systems of social stratification may be based upon fundamental imbalances of power and opportunity. (www.sociology.org.uk ) Marxist Theories The Marxist perspective is most often built on the ideas and theories of Karl Marx. According to Marx, society was based on the wealth and power in the capitalist system where the ruling class who owned the factors of production, exploited the working class. As far as education is concerned the Marxist ideas can be divided into two broad fields. First there are the Classical Marxists whose ideas can be directly traced to the theories of Karl Marx. The other group is of Neo-Marxists who have been more influenced by current writers like Althusser. Herbert Bowles and Samuel Gintis (“Schooling in Capitalist America”, 1976) have been influenced by the works of Althusser. They studied the inequalities in class structure and the economic status of people. They believed that the system of education had a strong role in perpetuating this inequality. As a result they have proposed a correspondence theory of the relationship between the nature of work and the education system in Capitalist societies. The role of an education system is to integrate people into various aspects of the Capitalist production process. Bowles and Gintis show how various aspects of economic production (work) have corresponding features in the education system. The organization of the education system explicitly mirrors the way work is organized in Capitalist societies. The system of education therefore, helps the ruling class to help maintain their position of power and dominance in the society (www.sociology.org.uk ). Further they argue that not only do they help the ruling class but they also preserve the hierarchal structure of the society. They do this by the interaction of the school, family and social relations of production. Bowles and Gintis have been criticized for not accepting the role of the state and its mediation between education and economy. Apart from this they also ignore the contents of the curriculum which is being taught. Also they consider the students to be passive and constantly on the receiving end. However, it should be realized that man is a social animal and learns most through interaction. This is what is found to be lacking in their theories. On the other hand are the Neo-Marxists. The sociologist who is of significance in this manner is Louis Althusser. Althusser claims that now there are three levels in the class society. The three levels are: the economic, the political and the ideological. Althusser argues that if Capitalism is to survive over time, it has to solve the “problem” of reproduction. That is, the ideas that underpin capitalist forms of production have to be continually internalized (believed) by succeeding generations of employees and employers. He further states that the economic hold of the Capitalists does stay throughout over the working classes. However, it should be equally supported by the state. Repressive state apparatus like courts, law and the police help to control this matter (www.sociology.org.uk ). The most important feature is still the ideological control of the masses. This is done by socializing the masses with the culture of the ruling class so that it is accepted as the dominant and correct culture and way of behaving. It is for these purposes that institutions such as mass media, religion and education are used. Over the past few decades secularization has resulted in a great decline in the value of religion. As a result, the education system has become the main ideological apparatus that prepares the children. Education is a vital part of this reproductive process, since it is through the education system that successive generations learn the things that will be needed in the world of work. These things are not simply skills, but also ideas and “ways of seeing”. The culture is taught to the children. They way of behaving is inbred into them. For Althusser, therefore, the role of education is not only that of: the teaching of basic literacy and numeric skills but also to teach them the capitalist culture. The teaching of the rules of good behavior, involving such things as: maintaining a level of order that is required for the continuation of economic production. Respect for and deference to legitimate authority .How to take and give orders. Schools have two main interrelated roles, both of which are directed towards the maintenance and reproduction of ruling class domination in society :A technical differentiation of knowledge: Knowledge, in this respect, can be translated into economic power (that is, people can sell their knowledge in the market place). For Althusser, a key feature of the ideology of schooling is social learning. He notes that this involves teachers playing a crucial part in transforming the consciousness of pupils. Orientating them towards an acceptance of “the realities of life” and, by implication, an acceptance of ruling class domination / hegemony. Through social learning (which we might also see as part of a hidden curriculum), Althusser argues a Capitalist class is able to ensure the reproduction of Capitalism (as an economic system) and its political leadership (hegemony) over time. Marxists have also been criticized for their approach towards education. Although Bowles and Gintis outline a clear correspondence between education and work in modern industrialized societies, it is not clear how Capitalism managed to survive for the 150-odd years in a society such as Britain prior to the creation of a universal system of education. One answer might be to argue that something like religion served a similar corresponding function, or that the apprenticeship system that operated in the early period of Capitalist development provided the corresponding functions that were subsequently taken-over by education. There is a tendency to underplay the idea that teachers may be well aware of what is happening within the system and may make conscious attempts to improve the quality of the education their pupils receive. In addition, much “liberal education” is not totally directed towards the specific requirements of the workplace - people are taught the ability to think independently, to question their surroundings, to criticize and so forth. If the correspondence between work and education is as close as Bowles and Gintis claim, it is difficult to see how these modes of thinking could be allowed to develop. It may be less a case of teachers “playing-out their allotted ideological role” as agents of ideological transmission than the fact that many of their pupils realize that they are destined for low status work and see little point in learning the kinds of things on offer in the education system. Interactionist Theories Much of the focus of the interactionist theories is related to the hidden curriculum. If Structuralist sociologists can be broadly (if not always accurately) be characterized as being interested in explaining the educational process in terms of what goes-on in society outside the classroom, Interactionist sociologists tend to take the opposite view; they focus on what happens inside the school, the classroom. This reflects the general Interactionist perspective since there is a belief that the most important object of study for sociologists is the way individuals actively construct and reconstruct their world on a daily basis. In socialization terms, for example, the focus is on the way this is a two-way (if not always equal), active, process of communication. Interactionist, therefore, have a different perspective in the sense of not focusing on such things as: The role of education, for example, as a functional social sub-system within society [Functionalism] or a means of reproducing ruling class hegemony [Marxism]. (www.sociology.org.uk ). While Structuralist writers have analyzed classroom interaction in terms of the ways teachers and pupils carry-out structural imperatives, Interactionists have been concerned with the (sociologically) messier process of the way the participants in the educational process actually go about the day-to-day construction and reconstruction of school life. Conclusion Although the points put forward by the three perspectives may differ their view point ends to a simple conclusive point. Education after family is turning into one of the most important social institutions and plays a big role in the proper functioning of the society. The children not only learn the things which help them academically but they also learn the essentials of living in the society (Giddens 2006) References Giddens, A., 2006, Sociology, 5th Edition, Polity Publications. Kirby, M. 2000, Sociology in Perspective, Heinemann. www.sociology.org.uk Read More

 

Read More