Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
in Maintaining
Social Order
©
2008
Tony Ward
Any part of this document may be published or reproduced without the
written permission of the author providing acknowledgements are given
The Role of Education in Maintaining Social Order
Critical education theorist Michael Young suggests that the perceived role of
education in society has not been stable. At different times, its purpose has been
viewed differently. He roughly divides its perceived social role into three phases:
“I allow of no writing for the poor. My object is not to make them fanatics, but
to train up the lower classes in habits of industry and piety.”2
At different times since then, education for the poor has been viewed by the
wealthy and powerful as a threat, by the poor themselves as a means of social
emancipation, by the middle class as a means of social distinction and by the State as
an investment. From the end of the Second World War until the mid-1970s, according
to Young, education was seen, as a contributor, either potentially or actually, to the
national economy in most States. This view accords closely with the theories put
forward by Jerome Karabel and A. H. Halsey of education as a kind of investment in
cultural or human capital.3 According to this theory. the educational investment would
return an economic profit to the individual over a lifetime of employment. By the
same token, the cumulative economic profit accorded to individuals would by
extension flow into the competitiveness of the national economy, increasing
investment and exports and leading to general prosperity. During this era, this
philosophy developed alongside, and to a large extent influenced, a general expansion
1
Young, M., "Education", in: Worsley, P. (ed.), The New Introducing Sociology, Penguin Books, London,
1987, p. 167. A great deal of the research into the relationship between education, power, economics,
culture and class has evolved from the British experience over the last thirty years. The theories arising
from this experience have had a profound effect upon theorising in other Western States, particularly in
the USA.
2
More, H., cited in: Lankshear, C. with Lawler, M., Literacy, Schooling and Revolution, Falmer Press,
1987, p. 45. and in: Simon, B., Studies in the History of Education, 1780-1870, Lawrence & Wishart,
1960, p. 133.
3
Karabel, J. and Halsey, A. H., op. cit., 1977.
of the educational system and a massive investment in the educational budgets of
most Western States.
One of the structural characteristics of this system was that it tended to create
new pyramidical social structures which differed from the older traditional
(aristocratic) structures of privilege and power. These newer structures -
meritocracies, in Michael Young's fictional and futuristic rendering, were based upon
natural talent or intelligence.4 The idea that everyone in society had a natural potential
which was being stifled by the older hierarchical social structures equated with the
drive to liberate these potentialities by developing a system based upon individual
merit. It was in this sense that, after the War, the theoretical development of I.Q
testing was expanded and overlaid (originally and primarily in Britain) on the existing
public school system, to target precisely those children from poor families who had
this natural ability to take their place in the developing meritocracy. This was known
as the 11-Plus exam, which was designed to "stream" children into different levels of
education compatible with their "natural abilities".
From the late 1950s to the mid-1970s, significant numbers of children from
working class homes entered the University-directed stream, and as a consequence,
the State was called upon to significantly expand its educational portfolio, particularly
at the tertiary level, in order to absorb these increasing numbers of students with
increased expectations. 5
4
Young, M., The Rise of the Meritocracy: 1870-2033, Pelican Books, Baltimore,1965.
5
Young, M. F. D., op. cit., 1987, p. 168.
6
Berg, I., Education and Jobs: The Great Training Robbery, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1983.
7
Collins, R., "Some comparative principles of educational stratification", in: Dale, R., et. al., Education
and the State, Falmer Press, 1981, pp. 277-292.
largely unrepresented at the university entrance level.8 Gradually, under the labour
Governments of Harold Wilson and James Callaghan, the streaming exam was phased
out and a system of comprehensive education was slowly and voluntarily established
in its place, with the intention of addressing the social stratification operating within
the larger British society, replacing the ethic of individualism and focussing instead
on a policy of social co-operation and understanding.9
8
Young, M. F. D., op. cit., 1987, p. 170.
9
Bullivant, B., The Pluralist Dilemma in Education, George Allen & Unwin, London, 1981, pp. 23-5. But
old Establishment habits die hard. At last analysis, few education authorities had taken the opportunity to
adopt the Comprehensive model, and the older stratified system persists, not least in the "Public" Schools
- Eton, Harrow, Winchester, etc, where the sons of the elite are prepared to take the place of their fathers
at the head of the dominant culture.
10
Young, M. F. D., op. cit., 1987, p. 170. See also: Boyd, D., Elites and Their Education, National
Foundation for Education Research, London, 1973.
11
Bernstein, B., Class Codes and Control. Vol. 1 , Routledge & Kegan Paul, London, 1971. Bernstein's
findings were not unique to Britain. I noted earlier, a similarity of findings in the researches of Sennett
and Cobb in Boston, and it was this similarity which was one of the main reasons for the influential
power of British theorising at this time.
became one of what properly constitutes knowledge, and the relationship of this
knowledge to the social hierarchies in society at large - ie. who, precisely has the
power to decide this constitution (and perhaps more pertinently who has the power to
decide who decides).
12
Roszak, T., The Dissenting Academy, Penguin, Harmondsworth, 1969; Illich, I., Deschooling Society.
Harper & Row, New York, 1971; Goodman, P., Growing Up Absurd, Vintage Books, New York, 1960;
Goodman, P., Compulsory, Miseducation and The Community of Scholars, Vintage Books, New York,
1964.
increasingly articulate argument that such knowledge is used as a mechanism for
social distinction used to keep the lower classes "in their place", so to speak.
13
Whitty, G. and Young, M., Explorations in the Politics of School Knowledge, Nafferton Books, London,
1976; Whitty, G. and Young, M. (eds), Society, State and Schooling, Falmer Press, Sussex, England
1977; Young, M. F. D. (ed), Knowledge and Control, Collier and McMillan, London, 1971; Young, M.
F. D., "An Approach to the Study of Curricula as Socially Organised Knowledge" in: Young, M. F. D.,
Knowledge and Control, Collier and McMillan, London, 1971; Young, M. F. D., "On the Politics of
Educational Knowledge" in: Education in Great Britain and Ireland, Bell, R., (Ed.) Oxford University
Press, 1973.
14
Young, M. F. D., op. cit., 1987, p. 176.
learning experience that each student was able to have, and thereby stratifying
children into a social hierarchy and limiting the life-chances of those at the bottom of
the created pyramid.15
15
Keddie, N., "Classroom Knowledge" in: Young, M. F. D., op. cit., 1971, pp. 133-160.
16
Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J. C., Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture, Sage, London, 1976;
Bernstein, B., Class, Codes and Conflict, Vol. 3: Towards a Theory of Educational Transmissions,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, London, 1975.
17
Young, M. F. D., op. cit., 1987, pp. 177-8.
distribution of subjects, all mediated by the authority of the teacher, had a profound
subliminal impact upon students in what he referred to as the influence of the "hidden
curriculum".18 According to Jackson, this subliminal framing of knowledge within the
context of regimes of authority, discrete subject areas, temporally segmenting and
replacing of the "natural" bodily rythms of students with regular and artificially-
inscribed blocks of time/attention associated with teaching corresponded to and was
shaped by patterns of industrial production in the wider workplace. Students were
being trained in school to passively sublimate their natural inclinations to the authority
of workplace management, and to engage their attention in abstract activities in which
they otherwise had no intrinsic interest.
In addition to the issue of value extrinsicity, the styles, structures and political
and physical organisation of the learning setting also play a very powerful role in the
shaping of the learning experience, in the hidden curriculum. I have already noted in
depth, for instance, the powerful role played by regimes of individualism, competition
and hierarchy in mediating the quality of what is learned, and in producing in the
students an attitude of resignation and quiescent to adult (employer) authority. In
these instances, what is learned over and above that which is explicitly stated as part
of the material knowledge under consideration is really a way of life, a form of
unconsciousness, as Althusser would put it, and an attitude towards the world and the
others who people it. What is learned is compliance with a set of implicit social values
and social codes which order the social relations of everyday life and the way we shall
confront it. What is learned is a quiescence in the face of authority, irrespective of
what is morally right. Among other things, we learn "not to rock the boat", not to
"make a fuss over nothing", forgetting in the process that the nothingness of nothing
has been defined for us before the fact, that it is a social construction which we are
being pressured to accept as truth, as "what is normal", or, as we have seen, as "human
nature".
The concept of the hidden curriculum has been a very powerful tool in
educational theorising in the late 1960s and early 1970s, in helping to explain the
persistent failure of working-class children, the continuing reproduction of unjust
social relations and the continued dominance of a particular segment of the culture,
often in spite of being greatly outnumbered. The hidden curriculum has thrown light
on the behaviour of teachers and pupils in classrooms and in playgrounds, suggesting
how it is that knowledge comes to be viewed in particular ways and whose interests
these processes most serve. The hidden curriculum reveals unconscious levels of
influence which profoundly affect experience and behaviour not just in the classroom,
but later, in the realm of everyday life.
18
Jackson, P., Life in Classrooms - The Hidden Curriculum, Holt, Reinhart and Winston, New York, 1968.
The Correspondence Theory of Education
In educational theorising, the notion of the hidden curriculum shifted attention
once again from the detailed analysis of classroom interactions between teachers and
students to the system of education as a whole and its relationship to the domain of
industry and work - to its relationship, in other words, to the social relations of
capitalist production. In the United States where Jackson's theories were formulated,
the idea was taken up and extended by sociologists Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis in
what was later to become known as their correspondence theory of education.19
Studying a wealth of previously available material and statistics, they inquired why
decades of liberal educational reform did not seem to have transformed the social
structure of the wider society. What they found was that although the educational
system as a whole espoused individual personal development and the need to nurture
individual needs and aspirations, in fact, it worked on the contrary to create highly
stratified social relations corresponding not to the liberal educational imperative, but
to the stratified capitalist economic system of wage-labour. While their ground-
breaking book Schooling in Capitalist America was later to come in for significant
criticism, suggesting an over-determination of the cultural superstructure by the
economic base, it nevertheless established quite clearly that education and capitalist
economics were hegemonically related.20 As Michael Young puts it:
The fact that what they learn about the relationship between merit and
achievement is largely untrue - that achievement is based overwhelmingly upon social
status, should alert us to the fact that education is seen here as being designed to
create a false picture of social reality. Bowles and Gintis' argument hinges upon the
ability of the school to create workers by creating a certain kind of consciousness - an
acceptance of the normative structures and values of the dominant culture. The
initiation of youth into the economic system happens in school through the
institutional relations to which students are subjected, rewarding certain capacities and
punishing others, and thereby tailoring self-concepts, aspirations and social class
identifications to the requirements of the social division of labour.22
19
They call their theory the structural correspondence principle of education, taking the term from Marx's
Contribution to a Critique of Political Economy, 1857.
20
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H., op. cit., 1976.
21
Young, M. F. D., op. cit., 1987, pp. 182-3.
22
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H., op. cit., 1976, p. 129.
Bowles and Gintis see this process happening along a series of axes. First of
all, they acknowledge that school promotes the acquisition of technical skills required
for job performance. But it also helps to legitimate social inequality by grounding lack
of educational performance in the personal inadequacy (lack of a sufficiently high I.
Q.) of individual students. The educational system also produces, rewards and labels
personal characteristics relevant to staffing positions in the social hierarchy of the
workplace, and finally, through the pattern of the status distinctions thus created, the
educational system reinforces the stratified consciousness on which "the
fragmentation of subordinate economic classes is based". In addition to all of this, and
by virtue of the objectivated legitimation (through "scientific" validation of statistical
I. Q. testing) of the whole stratified system, schooling conveys, according to Bowles
and Gintis, an aura of system inevitability, which creates in the students a
hopelessness and passivity which mitigates against any potential for system
transformation. 23
23
ibid., pp. 128-130.
24
Martin Carnoy and Henry Levin note, for instance, that universities allow for student and faculty
influence over decision-making in such areas as investment and curriculum policy and hiring and firing,
although, as we saw earlier, with the increasing industrialisation/commercialisation of the academic
environment, these freedoms cannot be taken for granted and are under increasing and systematic threat.
See: Carnoy, D. and Levin, H. M., The Limits of Educational Reform, Mckay, New York, 1976, p. 149.
control and rule-following as an integral part of their teaching style. The evidence
indicates overwhelmingly that this compares inversely with schools in more affluent
areas which tend to emphasise greater student participation and lessened supervision.25
Sennett and Cobb discovered in their Boston studies that the strict application
of supervisory rules is not only confined to the classroom for working class students,
but flows also into the home, where parents insist that schools apply their strict
authoritarian codes and "discipline" their children to the norms of society.26 Through
all of these structuring processes, the educational system as a whole tends, according
to Bowles and Gintis, to create an ordered society of appropriately charactered
individuals which fits more or less precisely the needs of the productive system of
capitalism.
25
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H., op. cit., p. 132.
26
Sennett, R. and Cobb, J., The Hidden Injuries of Class, Vintage Books, 1973.
27
Jones, A., At School I've Got a Chance: Culture/Privilege: Pacific Islands and Pakeha Girls at School,
Dunmore Press, Palmerston North, 1991.
"minority" and working class students achieve access to the upper limits of the social
hierarchy where they might otherwise be able to exercise system transformation.
The ambiguity and contradiction between the espoused aim of personal
emancipation and the actuality of social stratification will be readily apparent. While
at a conscious level, the message the student receives is that individual autonomy,
personal creativity and independence will be rewarded, at an unconscious level the
message communicated is that subservience to authority will bring reward, and
confrontation with authority or a challenge to the culture codes themselves will call
down retribution. In addition (and bearing in mind the earlier discussion about
punishment and reward) what this system does at an even deeper level of awareness is
to authenticate the privileging of extrinsic authority over individual self-authority,
which carries through, after school into the social relations of everyday life, and
reciprocally reinforces the social normativity upon which it has been based in the first
place.
28
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H., op. cit., 1976, p. 207.
Bowles and Gintis' correspondence theory dovetails well with the theories of
Louis Althusser. But correspondence theory also raised criticism because, according
to its critics, it placed undue emphasis upon the determining power of the economy
and left no space for hope of system transformation. In other words, if the whole of
the education system is determined by the form of capitalist economy, what
opportunity is there for imagining the possibility of social change? Under this model,
to change education one has to first change the whole of society and one cannot
change society tout court without beginning somewhere, perhaps in the domain of
education. Here we are back at Lefebvre's critique of orthodox Marxism, where no
change can happen at a local level unless it is preceded by change at the global level,
but of course events only become global by virtue of local origins. Unless one is
willing to grant to the cultural (in this case education) sphere the real possibility for
social change then one is left, as Henry Giroux has said, with a philosophy without
hope:
29
Giroux, H. A., op. cit., 1983, p.235.
"The reduction of economic inequality is ultimately a political, not an
economic question. The legitimation of economic inequality is critical to the
political defense of the fundamental institutions which regulate the U. S.
economy. An educational system purged of its social biases would hardly
contribute to the legitimation of inequality. Given the current emphasis on
meritocratic process, an equal school system would substantially undermine
the defenses of hierarchical privileges... But a more equal school system will
not create a more equal society simply through equalising the distribution of
human resources. It will only create the political opportunity for organising a
strong movement dedicated to achieving greater economic equality. Egalitarian
school reform must be explicitly political; its aim must be to undermine the
capacity of the system to perpetuate inequality."30
30
Bowles, S. and Gintis, H., op. cit., 1976, pp. 248-9.
31
Dewey, J., Democracy and Education, Free Press, New York, 1944, p. 20. (Originally published 1916).
For a thorough and concise analysis of the importance of Dewey's models of education and democracy,
see: Giroux, H. A., op. cit., 1988, pp. 79-87.
education theorists have explored these counter-culture realities under what they call a
theory of resistance. 32
The theory of resistance suggests that students are not just the passive
recipients of donated knowledge, but that they actively participate in the process of
education, in ways which resist the colonisation or acculturation process which the
educational system imposes through the laying on of the alien, dominant cultural
codes. These codes invariable contain as an integral component of their world view,
an ethic of hierarchical superiority which is class based, and which gives reflexive
legitimacy to their normative superordination. Furthermore, the theory of resistance
explains not only how working class children maintain some sense of their culture of
origin under the onslaught of the dominant culture ethos, but also how they construct
for themselves a culture of resistance. Put slightly differently, while the theories of
the reproduction of social relations are generally valid, they do not acknowledge the
ways in which social relations and culture are not only reproduced, but produced
through the social life of schools. In other words, they ignore how knowledge itself is
shaped through the ongoing conflict between competing subject experiences.33
When we actually apply the theory of resistance to unpack the everyday
happenings of the learning situation in schools, we find that the culture of resistance
which the students themselves create often works against their own material and
educational interests. The theory not only explains how this happens, but surprisingly
sheds new light upon the failure of the educational system to carry out its supposed
policy of social emancipation in spite of apparent efforts to effect real change. The
theory explains, in other words, why it is that the school system continues to
reproduce the present hierarchical social structure. It suggests that inability of
governments to successfully address the issue of illiteracy, for instance, stems not
from a lack of resources alone - that throwing money at the problem will not create a
literate population - but from a resistance to learning how to read on the part of the
student:
32
Giroux, H. A., op. cit., 1983.
33
Simon, R., I., Teaching Against the Grain, OISE Press, Toronto, 1992.
34
Giroux, H. A., "Introduction", in: Freire, P. and Macedo, D. Literacy: Reading the Word and the World,
Routledge and Kegan Paul, New York, 1987, p. 13.
"...this large number of people who do not read or write and who were
expelled from school do not represent a failure of the schooling class; their
expulsion reveals the triumph of the schooling class. In fact this misreading of
responsibility reflects the school's hidden curriculum... Curriculum in the
broadest sense involves not only the programmatic contents of the school
system, but also the scheduling, discipline, the day-to-day tasks required from
students in schools. In this curriculum, then, there is a quality that is hidden
and that gradually incites rebelliousness on the part of children and
adolescents. Their defiance corresponds to the aggressive elements in the
curriculum that work against the students and their interests.... In fact, students
are reacting to a curriculum and other material conditions in schools that
negate their histories, cultures and day-to-day experiences. School values work
counter to the interests of these students and tend to precipitate their expulsion
from school. It is as if the system were put in place to ensure that these
students pass through school and leave it as illiterates."35
35
ibid., p. 121.
36
ibid., p. 13.
37
Simon, R. I. "Empowerment as a Pedagogy of Possibility", Language Arts, Vol. 64, No. 4, April 1987,
pp. 370-82. See also:
of participatory democracy in the place of its debilitating mythologised and socially-
reproduced fiction:
“The defense of democracy thus entails a demand for its application at all
levels and in all spheres of society. This is a crucial point, for here emerges the
central theme of all socialist programs: the defense of political democracy is
simply the corollary to the demand for democracy at the workplace and social
control of the production process. Once workers raise a challenge to the
existing system of control in the firm, they will, through their experience, be
led to see the common content of these struggles. The defense and extension of
democracy may ultimately rest, then, on the working class’s effort to
(reorganize and democratize) the means of production and to organize, through
democratic rule, society’s material resources for the benefit of all society.
Democracy thus becomes the rallying cry not only to unite various fractions of
the working class, but also to unite the political and economic struggles of that
class.”38
"Of course, the only serious solution (for reform in higher education) is almost
universally rejected: the good old Great Books approach, in which a liberal
education means reading certainly generally recognised classical texts, just
reading them, letting them dictate what the questions are and the methods of
approaching them - not forcing them into categories we make up, not treating
them as historical products, but trying to read them as their authors wished
them to be read."39
38
Edwards, R., Contested Terrain, Basic Books, New York, 1979, pp. 215-6, quoted in: Apple, M. W.,
Education and Power, Ark Paperbacks, 1985. p. 172.
39
Bloom, A., The Closing of the American Mind, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1987 , p. 344. For a
radical critique of Bloom's position see: Aronowitz, S. and Giroux, H. A., op. cit., 1991, pp. 24-56.
Here we see education in its long traditional guise - as the gradual
accumulation of universal wisdom handed down from remote, abstract and
unquestioned authority. It is this model, we will observe, which lies at the root of
accepted educational practice - which views knowledge as a special category
possessed and/or filtered and selected by an elite minority and bestowed upon a
passively recipient majority. It is a model which stands, as I have said, in stark
contrast to its critical alternative. Respectively, and from a critical perspective, they
may be called an education as the practice of domination and education as the practice
of freedom.40
Together, these two models suggest two dramatically differing forms of
knowledge: the former purports to be ideologically neutral, the latter proclaims its
ideologically transparency. From these twin characterisations flow radically different
conceptions of teaching and learning, two very different conceptions of curriculum,
two different interpretations of professionalism, two different pedagogical practices
and, finally, within our own terms of reference, two very different conceptions of
Architecture. And this is why it is necessary, in the study of the social construction of
architectural education, to delve into the ideological underpinnings of these two
differing conceptions.
There is no middle course. This is why, at the very broadest level, the
definitions and meanings which we apply to the vocabulary of the design community
in differing ideological contexts differs radically, as the Cuban, Nicaraguan and
American examples cited earlier indicate. We are confronted at every point, with a
clear ideological choice in how we view the issue of knowledge.
It is to be seen either in the traditional sense promoted by Bloom and others as
the gradual accumulation of value-neutral information, linking all of the very best of
human thought and aspirations and passed down from generation to generation, or it is
to be seen as a contested domain where competing power groups in society vie for the
right to impose their particular version of reality on society at large and where in the
capitalist context, education functions as an instrument of economic and
epistemological oppression through the selective importation of dominant cultures
codes. This is the position which takes as its reference point a critical notion that
society as it is currently constituted is fundamentally flawed, but that it can be
improved through human struggle. It is an essentially neo-marxist position which
traces its roots back to the critical theorists of the 1930s, but which has moved beyond
their non-dialectical theorising to interrogate not only the failure of marxism itself, but
also the failure of critiques of marxism to formulate an operational moment of social
transformation and to apply these to the domain of institutionalised learning.
40
Freire, P., op. cit., 1972, p. 54. See also Giroux, H. A., op. cit., 1988, p. 118.