Analysis of Learning to Labour Research by Paul Willis - Term Paper Example

PAUL WILLIS- LEARNING TO LABOR In a very impressive ethnographic research, Paul Willis, closely studied the culture of his s- a group of rebellious working class white males in a British secondary school. The author undertook extensive research to observe the "counter-school culture" and the distinctive pattern of behavior that resulted from it. Willis discovered that the nature of "sources of meaning" on which these young lads depend and which determines their culture and behavior "warns against a too reductive or crude materialist notion of the cultural level." (171) Willis doesn’t undermine the significance of structures, rather he feels that these young lads are not only influenced by their own beliefs but are heavily influenced by the values and traditions of their class background, geographical location, local opportunity structure and these are what impact their job choices later in life. But he consistently reminds us that apart from these influences, the counter culture that these lads had developed for themselves also played a crucial role. For this reason, Willis explains that if we want to understand the phenomenon of social reproduction, we must not fail to comprehend: how and why young people take the restricted and often meaningless available jobs in ways which seem sensible to them in their familiar world as it is actually lived. For a proper treatment of these questions we must go to the cultural milieu ... and accept a certain autonomy of the processes at this level which defeats any simple notion of mechanistic causation and gives the social agents involved some meaningful scope for viewing, inhabiting, and constructing their own world in a way which is recognizably human and not theoretically reductive. (172) Social reproduction is the way people live after being influenced by various factors and forces. In this study of working class school, the author notices some serious divisions amongst students. Some of the students were termed "earoles"- this was the group that refused to rebel and was basically conformists. They would do what they are expected to do as students and then take up occupations suitable for working class people. The lads on the other hand followed the counter school culture. This group would rebel against authority and reject academic achievement as a measure of their worth. These rebels would do everything to defy authority, they would mock the conformists, cause disruption in class and question teachers and their authority just to "have a laff," and establish their superiority. They display a strong desire to openly resent authority and oppose school officials. Willis’ book is almost entirely based on the observation of this kind of rebellious behavior and its possible causes and reasons. The author argues that these lads reject school not only for fun but because they feel school achievement doesn’t really serve any purpose. Willis maintains this attitude is the result of some deep observations into the economic conditions of their class in a capitalist society. Willis feels that these lads do not give up any chance to have a ‘laff’ because they believe that achievement is pointless then why not have fun while you are at school. "The laff is a multi-faceted implement of extraordinary importance . . . the ability to produce it is one of the defining characteristics of being one of the the lads." (29) Their profound penetrations have turned them away from school achievement because they do not see any real hope for their class under capitalism. These lads reject school and academic achievement basically because of a pessimistic or realistic belief that while some people are capable of "making it," still conformism doesn’t offer any real rewards. (126-129) Michael Apple puts it this way, "Their rejection of so much of the content and form of day to day educational life bears on the almost unconscious realization that, as a class, schooling will not enable them to go much further than they already are." (p. 99) According to Willis, this kind of penetration into capitalism can instigate collective action. While these cultural penetrations could work in favor of the working class, they are largely affected by the "limitations" found in lads cultural beliefs. While these bright lads are intelligent people, they are still suffering from old ways of thinking where manual labor is equated with masculinity while mental labor is seen as a sign of social inferiority. 34 Interestingly this is not how the world usually valuates labor. Manual labor is usually seen as a sign of low paying jobs but since the lads reverse the valuation, it prevents them from identifying the dead-end jobs in which they are stuck. They proudly join their fathers on the shop floor believing that this exhibits freedom. Val Burris puts this point in these words: What begins as a potential insight into the conditions of labor and the identity of the working class is transformed, under the influence of patriarchal ideology, into a surprising and uncritical affirmation of manual labor. It is this identification of manual labor with male privilege which, more than anything else, ensures the lads acceptance of their subordinate economic fate and the successful reproduction of the class structure. (p. 525) The lads nonconformist cultural beliefs result in a complex but predictable reproduction of social hierarchies. In order to understand these beliefs and the entire process of social reproduction, it is important to study them within the framework of a theory that postulates relative autonomy of the cultural sphere. Willis is a Marxist but his views and theories are not based on economic determinism and he eschews from correspondence principle to explain social reproduction and perpetuity of class disparity. Willis tries to let culture speak for itself. He gives some power to culture to see how it alone can influence a person’s beliefs and actions resulting in constancy of old structures. While Willis doesn’t repudiate the role of structures, he insists that social reproduction and perpetuity of social inequality are not caused by structural determinants or prevalent ideologies rather they exist consistently due to cultural attitudes. Even though capitalist states have a mode of production, which wields powerful influences on social hierarchies, it is important to understand that people do not passively accept social inequality and disparities. Contestation and resistance to socio-economic pressures also significantly shape cultural attitudes. Thus culture implies "the active, collective use and explorations of received symbolic, ideological, and cultural resources to explain, make sense of and positively respond to inherited structural and material conditions." (Willis: 1983: 112) Keeping this in view, it is not difficult to imagine subordinate groups developing their alternative cultural beliefs, which they find suitable for working classes. This process is called cultural production in the book and is considered an active and transformation-oriented process. But while the cultural productions may be unique and new, they somehow lead to the same old social patterns and this results in social reproduction that doesn’t pave way for improvement and rather reinforces old structures. Liz Gordon remarks that: "Willis wishes to move away from an over-simplistic either/or model. He points out that there is no clear separation between agency and structure; these cannot be understood in isolation from one another." (113) In the United States the working class is not unified. Willis argues that working class is highly fragmented and often turns against each other to do exactly what higher social classes are doing to them. For the higher social classes, working classes are nothing but a production tool and this has divided the entire society into ‘us’ and ‘them’. While the working classes would show their disapproval of ‘them’, they often turn against each other to reinforce the very same ideology that defines them. Willis notes: "One of the time-honored principles of cultural and social organization in this country as it is enacted and understood at the subjective level is that of them and us. That the term them survives in us is usually overlooked. . . . Even the most us group has a little of them inside. . . . Ideology is the them in us." (164) Thus the Hallway Hangers would do everything to stamp their superiority over the "the niggers" and similarly poor blacks would call poor white "white trash" only to establish their separate identity. Interestingly the theories used by Willis do not present these lads in a grim light. Willis notes that these young lads often go about their lives and work without much complaint and with some degree of satisfaction because they have found a way to justify their actions and poverty. In the very same manner, David Bordua had rejected the grim delinquent theories of the past and suggested in 1961 that for young delinquents "fun, profit, glory, and freedom is a combination hard to beat, particularly for the inadequate conventional institutions that form the competition." Thee young lads who reject school and authority do not passively resist the system. They often take risks in order to establish the superiority of their subculture. Willis argues that "it is these more extreme activities which mark them off most completely, . . . from the school. There is a positive joy in fighting, in causing fights through intimidation, in talking about fighting and about the tactics of the whole fight situation" (34). Apart from violence other things are also involved such as "thieving is also a source of excitement rather like fighting . . . . a successful theft challenges and beats authority" (41). This becomes especially true when police gets involved: because "If you are copped, particular skills in blagging your way out of it can be brought to bear, and delinquents obtain renewed excitement and satisfaction when they get away with it" (40-41). Katz (1988) studied this theory carefully and found that conflict with the law is not exactly a deterrent for such delinquents; it can actually be a source of attraction and fun. Willis agreed as he observed that, "For a specific period in their lives the lads believe that they dwell in towers where grief can never come" (107). Such are the beliefs of young lads, which mark their early work experience. These lads would gladly enter into manual work feeling that such work can offer easy transition from school to adult life. The lads move into jobs such as tyre fitting, carpet laying, trainee machinists in a furniture factory, plumbers and bricklayers mate, . . . upholstering in a car seat firm, bar loading in a chromium plate factory, painting and decorating. At Easter and during the summer of 1975 they all find work fairly easily. Approximately one year later, in September 1976, half of them have left their first job. Two are in their third jobs, two cannot find work for the moment . . . . The experience of entering work and of changing jobs is not a major trauma for the lads. Their unofficial and informal self-preparation for work not only directs them towards, but also makes the passage into a certain kind of work more uneventful and problem-free than for many other groups (106). Willis however doesn’t stop his research to early work period alone. He fully understands the implications of this kind of carefree behavior. While initially these lads are happy with their behavior and their entry into adult world, it slowly dawns upon them that their behavior had sown seeds of intense despair for later life. "For no matter what the larger pattern of working class culture and cycle of its continuous regeneration, no matter what the severity of disillusion amongst the lads as they get older, their passage is to all intents and purposes irreversible . . . the shop floor becomes a prison" (107). Willis doesn’t dwell on the length of insulation that lads feel before the eventual realization comes. But this realization is not there for the early period at least. Willis maintains that early work experiences give these young lads enough money to buy whatever they want and to enjoy nightlife and job instability is not a cause of concern as Elder (1996: 47) also notes, "job loss during young adulthood is relatively common, and consequently entails less of an emotional risk when compared to later years." There are two distinct parts of Willis’ research. The first part deals with fun and frolic that young lads seem to be having during school years and while at work initially. However this behavior of causal lack of concern later results in employment problems and despair. The challenge is to discover when this cultural celebration comes to its disappointing end. Willis’ work is concerned with the lives of exclusively white, mid-1970s, English, working-class group of males and may thus have its own limitations. But his work had a pioneering effect and several later studies borrowed heavily from his work to further elaborate of young lads behavior in various parts. For example Sullivan (1989) drew from Willis’ research while studying the behavior of the New York City youth. This work has far reaching implications and its one of the most successful and original research done on the lives of working classes in Britain. References Paul E. Willis, Learning to Labor (Aldershot: Gower, 1977) Michael W. Apple, Education and Power (Boston: Routledge and Kegan Paul, 1982) Val Burris, rev. of Learning to Labor, by Paul Willis, Harvard Educational Review 50 (November 1980) Paul Willis, "Cultural Production and Theories of Reproduction," in Race, Class and Education, ed. Len Barton and Stephen Walker (London: Croom Helm, 1983) Liz Gordon, "Paul Willis--Education, Cultural Production and Social Reproduction," British Journal of Sociology of Education 5 (1984) Sullivan, Mercer. "Absent Fathers in the Inner City." Annals of the American Academy of the Political and Social Sciences 501 (January 1989): 48-58. Bordua, David J. 1961 . "Delinquent Subcultures: Sociological Interpretations of Gang Delinquency." Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Sciences 338:119-38. Read More