Conflict Theory and Education - Essay Example

? Conflict theory and Education Grade (10th, April. Conflict theory and Education Conflict theory is a form of social theory, which upholds the fundamental perspective that human behavior within a social context will always arise as a result of conflicts between competing groups (Marx, 1971). The basis of this theory is the observation that; different social classes within a society have differing amounts of material and non-material resources, which allow the ones with access to resources to exploit those ones without the access. The theory was developed by Karl Marx in the mid-1800s, through observing the conflict between the capitalist societies; those who owned the factors of production had the powers to manipulate and exploit those who did not have access to such resources (Marx, 1971). This created a conflict between owners of the factors of productions, such as land owners and factory owners, and their workers, who did not have a right to such factors of production. This occurred in the form of land owners and the employers exploiting the workers, through working them for long hours and hard labor, while paying them meager wages. This theory has been developed and refurbished by different scholars since then, but the fundamental similarity between all the versions of the conflict theory is that, different social groups have unequal powers to access and use material and non-material resources, although all groups are struggling for the same limited resources (Marx, 1971). Thus, using this fundamental tenet of the conflict theory, human behavior within any social context can be explained, which may include the educational practices, the criminal behavior or even the customs that are associated with the elderly. This discussion seeks to examine the conflict theory and its relationship to education, with a view to understanding the applicability of this theory in the field of education, through understanding how it supports or criticizes education. According to Conflict theory, there are two major ways the upper and powerful social classes can apply to exploit the lower classes of the society, who do not have access to the material and non-material resources, and thus have to depend on the upper social classes for their survival. First, the upper classes of the society can use brutal force, which include using the police and the army to subdue and exploit the lower classes of society, who do not own the means of production (Changhwan & Sakamoto, 2006). Alternatively, the upper classes can apply economic means to exploit the lower classes of the society, through ensuring that they suppress them economically and thus places them in a situation where they will always depend on the upper classes of the society for their survival (Morrow & Torres, 1995). Between the two major ways of suppressing the lower classes and ensuring that they remain dependent on the upper classes who own the means of production, the application of the economic means is the most effective, since it can be applied selectively amongst the different social classes to effectively sub-divide them, and ensure less resistance to the suppressions. Therefore, money is the major tool that is applied to create disorder in the society, through availing it in a limited fashion, making the lower social classes of the society to keep struggling to get more of it, and thus satisfy their needs. In all these, education is a vital tool, since educational practices can be applied either to challenge or to maintain the status quo (Schlee, 2004). Education is a major tool that is used to create enlightenment in the society, and thus differentiate between the educated and the uneducated. However, there is no doubt that education is a vital tool for social development and realizing individual goals of advancement, since it creates a channel through which an individual can move from one social class to the other (Marx, 1971). When an individual from a poor background, who is a member of the lower class of the society, gets an opportunity to get education to the highest levels, such an individual can then move from the lower class to the upper class, since he/she will have an opportunity for getting good and highly paying jobs or even get more opportunities to venture into, and conduct businesses that would make the individual wealthy. However, according to the conflict theory, education is an exploitative tool that is used by the capitalists and the higher classes of the society to perpetuate the status quo, and thus breed more inequality in the society (Changhwan & Sakamoto, 2006). Conflict theory upholds that education is used to sustain the position of those who dominate the society, through ensuring that the other social classes do not ascend to high social profiles. This is because; education is used to teach the children from the poor background to be obedient workers, and followers of instructions, at the expense of teaching such children the value of autonomy, higher-order thinking and self-expression (Kandel, 1971). Such educational training are highly detrimental to the development of the lower classes of the society to become anything better, since they serve to ensure that the children from the poor backgrounds and those who are members of the lower classes of the society are trained to be workers, through being granted the skills for white collar jobs, at the expense of instilling autonomy, creativity and innovation in them, which would allow them to come up with new ideas that can help them create enterprises of their own. Through training such children on the value of obedience and following instructions, the children are constantly being prepared to become employees, and thus their mind set is already tilted towards serving others, at the expense of making themselves their own bosses (Paulston, 1976). The disadvantage with this approach, according to the conflict theory is that, the members of the lower classes will always be prepared to serve the members of the higher classes, while the members of the higher classes will always be trained to become autonomous, and self-expressed, and thus to continuously dominate over the lower classes. Thus, in this sense, education serves to perpetuate social inequality, by charting an avenue through which the upper classes of the society will always be dominant over the lower classes, while the lower classes are prepared to be the servants of the wealthy owners of the factors of production. The other fundamental principle that is applied by the conflict theory to criticize education is the principle of sorting. Conflict theory upholds that education is not universally applicable to all individuals in the society. This is because; there are fewer educational institutions than the number of individuals in the society. Therefore, the principle of sorting must apply, where the schools and the educational institutions sorts out amongst the prospective students, to come with the ones with requisite qualifications, and give them an opportunity to continue advancing in education. However, while sorting out is a noble activity of the educational system, the problem with this practice, according to the conflict theory is that; sorting is done on the basis of distinct class and ethnic lines (Morrow & Torres, 1995). The conflict theorists apply various bases to defend this controversial position. First, schools are funded through taxes and fees payable by the students. Therefore, private schools are well funded and equipped, since they charge high fees, and thus are able to avail sufficient school learning equipments, materials and facilities. On the other hand, public schools are underfunded, understaffed and have inadequate learning equipment and facilities, since the fees charged are relatively low, thus not sufficient to avail the necessary educational facilities and equipments for all the students who enroll in the schools. Therefore, while the private school sorts out and admits children from the middle and the upper classes of the society, the lower classes are left to contend with the public schools, where resources are insufficient, and thus training is poor (Schlee, 2004). The second aspect that makes the sorting-out for students more ethnic and class-based is the fact that, most selections in schools are done on the basis of intelligence and knowledge based tests, such as the IQ tests, to determine which student is to be admitted to a certain grade or school. The application of such tests are certainly bound to favor children from the affluent families, who are members of the middle and upper classes of the society, since such children have had exposure to media, technology and other social-cultural aspects that make the children more knowledgeable (Morrow & Torres, 1995). This means that children from the affluent families will pass the IQ and other knowledge based tests, while those from poor backgrounds, who do not have the access to media and technology will be left out, since their intelligence and social-cultural knowledge does not much that of the children from the affluent families. The end result is that; students from the poor background will not get an opportunity to be admitted to good schools, which forces them to contend with the public and lowly classified schools. This means that while the children of the affluent families end-up in high-tech universities and institutions of higher learning where creativity and innovation is nurtured, to develop noble ideas that can enhance the establishment of own-enterprises and thus facilitate financial independence, the children from poor families and neighborhood will be forced to end-up in vocational training institutions, where they will be taught the skills of working and serving in enterprises that already established, as workers (Changhwan & Sakamoto, 2006). Therefore, the sorting out that is done in the educational arena serves to make the higher classes of the society even more equipped and facilitated to continue with their dominance on the lower classes, while the lower classes are continuously being placed at a level that makes them workers and servants of the higher classes. The other aspect that makes education a tool for social dominance, according to conflict theory is the fact that, Schools are also powerful agents of socialization which can be used as the basis for some social classes to exert dominance power over the lower classes of the society (Morrow & Torres, 1995). This is most applicable in situations where schools demand that certain subjects are mandatory for all students, regardless of their race, religion, language, culture and political ideologies. This is because, when such subjects are made mandatory for all the students, it is most definite that certain students will be disoriented and thus will lag behind others, in subjects that are not compatible with their culture, language, religious practices or political ideologies (Marx, 1971). For example, considering a school environment where English language is mandatory for all students, there are some students who are certainly bound to lag behind in this subject, if such students are of other origins other than English-origin, for example students who are of the Hispanic, Indian and black origin. They are consistently put in a position where their white counterparts will understand the subject better, and considering that it has been made the mandatory language for communication and undertaking tests and exams, the students who are of the non-English origin will certainly lag behind in school performance. This means that they will also be disadvantaged in the social and employment market, since their performance was not as good as that of the students of the English origin (Paulston, 1976). Therefore, it is apparent that education is a tool that serves to build more inequality and social dominance of the society by the affluent and higher classes of the society on the lower classes. Education can do little to reduce the social inequality, since it builds on the status quo, only creating meager chances for some few individuals, amongst the massive number of the lower social classes member to break the social barriers, and join the higher cadre of the society (Morrow & Torres, 1995). Otherwise, the rest of the members of the social classes are simply trained to take up the roles of serving the higher classes of the society, through being trained on obedience and good service qualities, which makes them most suitable to serve their employers, at the expense of training the lower classes the skills that can allow them to break the social bondage, by making them more autonomous, higher-order thinkers, and self-expressed (Schlee, 2004). Thus, conflict theory emphasizes on change. According to the proponents of the conflict theory, social change is necessary to ensure that the dominance of the affluent and the higher classes of the society is overcome. While education can be applied to create such a change, since it is an avenue through which the lower classes of the society can climb the ladder and join the higher cadre of the society, it cannot achieve this change in its present form (Morrow & Torres, 1995). The conflict between the competing interests in education cannot be resolved through consensus and adaptation, where the lower classes are forced to contend with the educational system, and agree to uphold the system through being taught to adapt to their roles as workers and servants of the higher classes, by being taught to be obedient workers (Changhwan & Sakamoto, 2006). Consensus cannot help in resolving this stalemate either, since the higher classes of the society will seek to establish a consensus where they will be favored by the system. Therefore, to make education an effective tool for fighting over the dominance of the higher classes on the lower classes of the society, radical change is deemed necessary to overhaul the whole education system and make it more responsive to the competing needs of the lower classes of the society. However, conflict theory has been highly criticized for its focus on change, at the expense of social stability (Kandel, 1971). To achieve societal change that is beneficial, change should be minor and incremental, spread over a wide range of time, as opposed to being radical and revolutionary, as advocated for by the conflict theory, since this would disrupt the whole social order and create instability (Schlee, 2004). References Changhwan, K., & Sakamoto, A. (2006). Does Inequality Increase Productivity? Revisiting the Debate Between Functionalism and Conflict Theory. Conference Papers - American Sociological Association. Kandel, I. L. (1967). Conflicting theories of education. New York: Russell & Russell. Marx, Karl. 1971. Preface to A Contribution to the Critique of Political Economy. London: Lawrence & Whishart. Morrow, R. A., & Torres, C. A. (1995). Social theory and education: A critique of theories of social and cultural reproduction. Albany: State Univ. of New York Press. Paulston, R. G. (1976). Conflicting theories of social and educational change: A typological review. Pittsburgh: University Center for International Studies. Schlee, G. (2004). Taking Sides and Constructing Identities: Reflections on Conflict Theory. Journal of the Royal Anthropological Institute, 10(1), 135-156. Read More