Assess the Contribution of Marxism to Our Understanding of the Role of Education

The soundbite criticisms of capitalism are legion, yet it’s harder to offer alternatives, aside from the vague notion of 'something else'. Despite the carnage of trying to socially engineer equality in the 20th century, nevertheless the myth persists that capitalist wealth creation is superfluous and money is readily available to a small number of elitists called a government under common ownership, who distribute, or simply print more paper. Ironically, the ones shouting the loudest against capitalism are often those dependent on the profits of capitalism to provide the welfare payments needed to keep them alive.

The purpose of this study is to provide empirical evidence of the existence of what the author calls a “hidden curriculum” in schools by observing the types and differences in school work across a spectrum of social classes (Anyon, 1980, p. 67). The rationale for this study is lies in a body of research suggesting that the type of curriculum offered to students is dependent upon their social class (Anyon, 1980). The curriculum variants observed include: behavior expectations and types of knowledge and skills offered. Consequently, the curriculum differences work to prevent movement across social class and prepare students only for the types of employment typical of their social class (Anyon, 1980). Anyon attempts to draw attention to this topic in the United States, as it had been largely ignored at the time (1980).

Marxists however criticise this view as they believe the values transmitted by education are not those shared by everyone in society but rather those of the ruling class. In some examples this can be seen when the ruling class creates a list of values which they believe everyone should learn in society.

Marxists believe that the most deprived people shouldn’t have a good education and the least deprived people need more of an education so they can get into the better jobs. Least deprived people have more money and more control, Marxists are for this and would rather

Continuing with the idea of people believing that it is unfair how the upper class has more advantages in life, this bring us to the “meritocratic model” which is the model that “recognizes inequities and tries to correct for socioeconomic disadvantages” says Arora (Arora 87). This is the system that is related with the United States (Arora 87) and the reason that most people believe that this model is fair is because people with low incomes or with fewer benefits are offered programs such as the Headstart program and subsidized healthcare. Doing this would help out the needy and put everyone at somewhat of an equal place in life. However thinking deeply into the idea of these programs, they are not entirely fair from everyone’s point of view. For example, some people are born with something that Arora refers to as the “natural lottery” which is described as “people who are born with certain talents and attributes- for instance, oratory, musical acumen, physical beauty and health, athleticism, good memory and

Marxism is based on the macro theory which, like functionalism, is concerned with the structure of society. Marxism explains inequalities in societies such as the UK by examining the ways in which the bourgeoisie exploit and oppress the working class or proletariat. Inequalities are a result of the economic arrangements people make to meet their basic needs. Bowles and Gintis used Marxist ideas to explain how the education system reproduced the ideas of the ruling class and legitimated inequalities. They argue students’ experience of schooling is an alienating one. School specifically prepares students for their future as workers in a capitalist system. They argue that school does not

(Wise 179) Meritocracy is the idea that those who have made it to the top of the power structure done so by hard work and talent. If someone were to fail it is their own fault for being lazy and not trying hard enough. The reality is that this is not at all true, there are many obstacles, no matter how determined you are there will always be an obstacle. We do like to believe that we are in control of what happens in our lives, it is empowering unlike the belief that there are systematic restraints that block opportunities for

The neo-Marxist Althusser (1971) disagrees that the main function of the education is the transmission of common values. He thinks that education is an ideological state apparatus and its main function is to maintain, Legitimate and reproduce, generation by generation, class inequalities in wealth and power by transmitting capitalist values disguised as common values.

Marxism is often cited as being irrelevant within contemporary society due to the fact that Marx had critiqued an almost incomparable society. McDonald & Brownlee (2001) argue

The Marxist's perspective is dominantly based on economic factors and over emphasizes them; money is assumed to be everything within society and social life. In my view, something is clearly missing here such as values and other social factors. Assuming that money is everything within society leads to assumptions that those owning the productive and therefore economic resources are given the power and use it to control those without to maintain their hegemony. Further factors that can form and shape society like gender, ethnicity, age, culture etc. are not taken into consideration and neglected. Hence the Marxist perspective focuses on having versus not having, earning versus not earning and powerful versus powerless.

Marxists see the capitalist society as being ruled by the economy. The bourgeoisie rule the majority of the country’s wealth and the power to rule. The proletariat are exploited because they payed fairly. This is the foundation of class inequality. One of the most published conflict models is the model proposed by Bowles and Gintis in Schooling in Capitalist America (1976). Bowles and Gintis, like functionalists, see education has a vital link to the economy. But, unlike the functionalists, it is the requirements of industrial capitalism. Bowles and Gintis argue that education operates within the ‘long shadow of work’, which is the education system regulates the organisation of workers for the ideal workforce of a capitalist society (Giddens,

order to gain an education and as a result, to qualify in some form to

Hidden curriculum is not a new concept in the education system, and as a matter of fact, it begins early in a child’s education. According to Sociology: A Down-to-Earth Approach, “hidden curriculum refers to the attitudes and the unwritten rules of behavior that schools teach in addition to the formal education.” This includes rules and expectations. According to The Hidden Curriculum in Higher Education, “hidden curriculum emphasize[s] specific skills: learning to wait quietly, exercising restraint, trying, completing work, keeping busy, cooperating, showing allegiance to both teachers and peers, being neat and punctual, and conducting oneself courteously.” Hidden curriculum sets the standard for what is proper in society. This concept helps

Bowles and Gintis felt it was important to write this article, because they believe that the politics of education are better understood in terms of the need for social control in an unequal and rapidly changing economic order. This point is illustrated on page 396 when the authors say, “The unequal

Marxism is the theory of Karl Marx and Fredrich Engels, it’s based on the economical and social system. Marxism emphasizes on the importance of class struggle in society. They thought that economic processes and class struggles laid the groundwork for every important era and movement in history, and would lead to the downfall of the upper class and the rise of an egalitarian communist society. Under capitalism, the working class or “the people,” own only their capacity to work; they have the ability only to sell their own labor. According to Marx a class is defined by the relations of its members to the means of production. The worker is alienated because he has no control over the labor or product which he produces. The