***Marxist Perspective on Education: Dominant Ideologies of the Ruling Class and Inequalities in the Classroom
Institutions like education and economic production tend to both reinforce and promote the ideas of the dominant and ruling class. The transformation of agrarian society into a more industrialized society with the use of factories as sites and sources of production caused education to be thought of as another way to generate the masses into lockstep by teaching them at an early age to be punctual, obedient, and submissive. This mode of schooling did not teach about literature or mathematics, but instead, taught students about morality and about submission to the standards set by the owners of factories.
In Schooling in Capitalist America, Gintis and Bowles argue that the reasons behind implementing compulsory education are directly related to the factory mode of production and the particular behaviors like respect of authority and punctuality were beneficial to employers. Much like Karl Marx argued that the proletariat was forced to adhere to the ideologies and practices of the elite bourgeois, students (who later turned into factory workers) had to adhere to the educational practices and emphasis on socialization that would benefit the factory owners because they were precisely the ones implementing these modes of thought. We must look at the ways in which educational curricula are shpaed by the ideoloies of the dominant groups in our society. We must examine the inequalities that exist in education and provide thoughtful critique on what social inequalities are carried out within the classroom realm of society.
***
basically, i'd like to wipe out the entire notion of a captialist society and begin fresh with a system in which everyone is able to enjoy life at its finest.
in my women's health class, many students point to the need of some single mothers to hold two jobs to support their families. since when did life become about working and working until you die? i can't help but think life is about enjoying the day and taking pleasure in all of this beauty. i just want everyone to have a chance to experience the joys of life without having to make worrying about money their entire life. ahhh...wouldn't life be something truly special then? for everyone?
sweeter dreams.
k
13 comments:
"A system in which everyone is able to enjoy life at its finest"...I think that sounds like something i would love to partake in. It sounds perfect. But people are not perfect. There will always be greed, lust, laziness, ect. There will always be people trying to get more than what they deserve. Please don't take me as sarcastic or rude, i have no intention of being either. I get the idea of a system like that, i wish it could be done. But until society finds some sort of moral system to cling to. There will never be that kind of perfect system.
loved your post!! follow me please..
Jacqui
i'd like to argue that greediness, lust, and laziness are the result of a capitalist society--thus, were we to wipe that out, perhaps, we could work on allowing people to enjoy life...
thanks for your comment :)
hey! Love this piece, got to go to work but cant wait to read more! xxx
Every economic system looks perfect on paper.
Then the humans get involved...
race-the-sunset.blogspot.com
I would also submit that the goal behind Marxist education is social norming, encouraging homogeneity. Capitalist education goals are driven towards maximizing individual potential, encouraging atypical versus typical outcomes. Hence, capitalist education systems produce far more persons of an entreprenueurial bent. The problem is that Capitalist systems are responsive to individual drive and ambition. If a student possesses neither, then failure is assured. Marxist systems provide for common outcomes, which helps assure the survival of the less adept, but at the same time leaves the society without the benefits accrued from the achievement of the most capable.
In Soviet Russia, and in the People's Republic of China, professions like the law, medicine, and engineering consistantly fell short of the levels of performance and achievment common to their Capitalist counterparts. While a normalized outcome has some visceral or emotional attraction, it is inconsistant with the reality that with regards to gifts and talents, every human is unique.
I'd like to say that freedom comes at a cost. I'm neither for or against a restrictive society. A balance reasonable should be kept between freedom and government stupid policies that's all.
Kim, AWSOME post! The ideas you posess are ones that have been asked over and over, i.e., a world without money... makes one really ponder what inalienable rights are to huh? Money has taken those as well... :)
Your blog is really interesting.I like very much.
Have a nice day.
ralph, yes, everything looks good on paper. however, i have been studying the functionalist perspective of education (school as an opportunity for those with intelligence/talent/etc. to excel) versus a cultural approach (structural/institutional barriers/opportunities, disadvantages/advantages exist in the educational system that have the potential to set back someone or allow them to succeed.
also, if you look at the educational systems in the US versus european counterparts you will find that europeans scored higher than the US because they do not make time for subjects like driver's ed but rather focus on the math and sciences. so, i'd say there is variation even among capitalist countries.
perhaps, what is being taught and to whom is a more important question to ask than whether it is capitalist or socialist?
what do you think?
thank you everyone for your comments! i so appreciate them!
"ralph, yes, everything looks good on paper. however, i have been studying the functionalist perspective of education (school as an opportunity for those with intelligence/talent/etc. to excel) versus a cultural approach (structural/institutional barriers/opportunities, disadvantages/advantages exist in the educational system that have the potential to set back someone or allow them to succeed.
also, if you look at the educational systems in the US versus european counterparts you will find that europeans scored higher than the US because they do not make time for subjects like driver's ed but rather focus on the math and sciences. so, i'd say there is variation even among capitalist countries.
perhaps, what is being taught and to whom is a more important question to ask than whether it is capitalist or socialist?
what do you think?"
Kim,
Thanks for your response! My sister has been a professional educator for more than 30 years. In addition, I have had extensive conversations with people from both Europe and Asia. From those two perspectives, I have arrived at this tentative conclusion. Students in America tend to regard education as a birthright; something they are owed. Europeans and (especially) Asians regard (and have said this to me) education as a gift. My Korean daughter-in-law described a typical school day for them as being:
In class by 7:00 a.m. School ends around 5:00 p.m. After a supper break, the kids are sent to private tutors until around 9:00 or 10:00 p.m. That's a 6-day-per-week schedule. The students do it willingly because they know that in that extremely competitive culture, education is the key to economic and professional success. As I understand it, the same attitude is prevalent in Europe. Can you imagine the hue and cry in this country if an American kid was put under that kind of schedule? In a regulated capitalist entrepreneurial environment, hard work and smart decisions on the part of the individual are important (but not sole) keys to success. Americans have fallen in love with the path of least resistance and have adopted a striving for mediocrity. That has a huge impact on a person's eventual fate.
"i'd like to argue that greediness, lust, and laziness are the result of a capitalist society--thus, were we to wipe that out, perhaps, we could work on allowing people to enjoy life..."
If you carry a child everywhere, that child will never learn to walk. The social safety net we have constructed encourages unemployment, and when people get used to getting free stuff from the government, that's a hard addiction to break. The rich people (the capitalists) I have known in my life never work less than 60 hours per week both in and out of the workplace, while the working poor (I was one for a time) consider their work day done when the shift ends. Yes, there are always individual exceptions; after all, there are warped boards in every pile of lumber. But clearly the way one approaches life, regarding it either as an entitlement to be received or as an opportunity to be developed has consequences.
Try reading "The Lotos Eaters" by Alfred, Lord Tennyson. He obviously understood human nature.
Best of luck, and may good fortune be your best friend!
Post a Comment