Marxist Theory of Education

Marxist and functionalist views on education

For Marxists, the functionalist idea that education fosters equal opportunities for all, and that it is a fair system, is a capitalist myth. It is perpetuated to persuade the working-class (the proletariat) to accept their subjugation as normal and natural and to believe that they share the same interests as the capitalist ruling class.

In Marxist terminology, this is called 'false consciousness'. Education legitimises class inequality by producing and reproducing ideologies that foster false consciousness and blames the working class for their failures.

False consciousness is essential in maintaining capitalism; it keeps the working class under control and stops them from revolting and overthrowing capitalism. For Marxists, education fulfils other functions too:

• The education system is based on exploitation and oppression; it teaches proletariat children that they exist to be dominated, and it teaches children of the capitalist ruling class they exist to dominate. Schools subdue pupils so that they do not resist the systems that exploit and oppress them.

• Schools are gatekeepers of knowledge and decide what constitutes knowledge. Therefore, schools do not teach pupils that they are oppressed and exploited or need to free themselves. In this way, pupils are kept in a state of false consciousness.

• Class consciousness is the self-understanding and awareness of our relationship to the means of production, and class status relative to others. Class consciousness can be achieved through political education, but is not possible through formal education, as it only prioritises the ideologies of the capitalist ruling class.

Class traitors in education

The Oxford Dictionary defines a traitor as:

Marxists see many people in society as traitors because they help maintain the capitalist system. In particular, Marxists point out class traitors. Class traitors refer to people who work against, whether directly or indirectly, the needs and interests of their class.

Class traitors include:

• Police officers, immigration officers, and soldiers who are part of imperialist militaries.

• Teachers, especially those who uphold and enforce capitalist ideologies.

Material conditions in education

The father of Marxism, Karl Marx (1818–1883), argued that humans are material beings and are constantly trying to meet their material needs. This is what motivates people to act. Our material conditions are the conditions of the environment in which we live; for us to survive, we must produce and reproduce material goods. When discussing material conditions Marxists consider:

• The quality of materials available to us and our relationship to the modes of production, which in turn shape our material conditions.

• The material conditions of working-class and middle-class pupils are not the same. Classism prevents working-class pupils from fulfilling particular material needs. For example, some working-class households cannot afford regular nutritious meals, and malnourishment can negatively impact children's learning.

• Marxists ask, how good is the quality of a person's life? What is, or isn't available to them? This includes disabled pupils and pupils with 'special educational needs' (SEN) attending schools that can meet their learning needs. Disabled pupils from middle-class and upper-class families have access to schools with extra support.

Marxist theory of alienation in education

Karl Marx also explored his concept of alienation within the education system. Marx's theory of alienation focused on the idea that people experience alienation from human nature due to the division of labour in society. We are distanced from our human nature by societal structures.

In terms of education, Marx expresses how the education system prepares younger members of society to enter the world of work. Schools accomplish this by teaching pupils to follow a strict daytime regime, adhere to specific hours, obey authority and repeat the same monotonous tasks. He described this as alienating individuals from a young age as they begin to stray from the freedom they experienced as a child.

Marx furthers on this theory, adding that when alienation occurs, each individual finds it more difficult to determine their rights or their life goals. This is because they are so alienated from their natural human state.

Let's explore some other important Marxist theories on education.

Marxist theories on the role of education

There are three main Marxist theorists with theories about the roles of education. They are Louis Althusser, Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis. Let's evaluate their theories on the role of education.

Louis Althusser on education

French Marxist philosopher Louis Althusser (1918-1990) argued that education exists to produce and reproduce an efficient and obedient workforce. Althusser highlighted that education is sometimes made to seem fair when it is not; laws and legislation that promote educational equality are also part of the system that subjugates pupils and reproduces inequalities.

Fig. 1 - Louis Althusser argued that education exists to reproduce an obedient workforce.

Althusser added to the Marxist understanding of the superstructure and base by distinguishing between the 'repressive state apparatuses' (RSA) and the 'ideological state apparatuses' (ISA), both of which form the state. The state is how the capitalist ruling class maintains power, and education has taken over from religion as the principle ISA. The capitalist ruling class maintains power by using both the RSA and ISA to ensure the working classes do not achieve class consciousness.

Repressive state apparatuses

The RSA consist of institutions such as the police, social services, the army, the criminal justice system, and the prison system.

Ideological state apparatuses

Ideology is vulnerable to the so-called truths set by social institutions like religion, the family, the media, and education. It controls people's beliefs, values, and thoughts, obscuring the reality of exploitation and ensuring people are in a state of false class consciousness. Education plays a vital role in distilling dominant ideologies. This is possible because children must attend school.

Hegemony in education

This is the domination of one group or ideology over others. Italian Marxist Antonio Gramsci (1891-1937) developed the theory of hegemony further by describing it as a combination of coercion and consent. The oppressed are persuaded to give permission for their own oppression. This is important in understanding how RSAs and ISAs are used by the state and the capitalist ruling class. For example:

• Schools and other educational institutions present themselves as ideologically neutral.

• Education promotes the 'myth of meritocracy' whilst also placing barriers to ensure the subjugation of pupils, and blaming them for their underachievement.

• The RSAs and ISAs work together. The criminal justice system and social services punish parents of pupils who do not attend school regularly, thus forcing them to send their children to school to be indoctrinated.

• History is taught from the perspective of the white capitalist ruling classes and the oppressed are taught that their subjugation is natural and fair.

• The curriculum prioritises subjects that provide key skills for the marketplace like mathematics, while subjects like drama and home economics are devalued.

Legitimising inequalities in education

Althusser asserts that our subjectivity is institutionally produced and refers to this as 'interpellation'. This is a process in which we encounter a culture's values and internalise them; our ideas are not our own. We are interpellated as free subjects for us to submit to those who subjugate us, meaning we are made to believe that we are free or no longer oppressed, even though that is not true.

Marxist feminists further argue:

• Women and girls are an oppressed class. Because girls can choose what subjects to study for their GCSEs, people are made to believe women and girls are liberated, ignoring that subject choice is still very much gendered.

• Girls are overrepresented in subjects such as sociology, art, and English literature, which are considered 'feminine' subjects. Boys are overrepresented in subjects such as science, mathematics and design and technologies, which are usually labelled 'masculine' subjects.

• Despite the over-representation of girls in sociology at GCSE and A-level, for example, it remains a male-dominated field. Many feminists have criticised sociology for prioritising the experiences of boys and men.

• The hidden curriculum (discussed below) teaches girls to accept their oppression.

Sam Bowles and Herb Gintis on education

For Bowles and Gintis, education casts a long shadow over work. The capitalist ruling class created education as an institution to serve their own interests. Education prepares children, especially working-class children, to serve the ruling capitalist class. Pupil experiences of schooling correspond with workplace culture, values, and norms.

The correspondence principle in schools

Schools prepare pupils for the workforce by socialising them to become compliant workers. They achieve this by what Bowles and Gintis call the correspondence principle.

Schools replicate the workplace; the norms and values pupils learn in school (wearing uniforms, attendance and punctuality, the prefect system, rewards and punishments) correspond to the norms and values that will make them valuable members of the workforce. This aims to create compliant workers who accept the status quo and do not challenge the dominant ideology.

The hidden curriculum in schools

The correspondence principle operates through the hidden curriculum. The hidden curriculum refers to things education teaches us that are not part of the formal curriculum. By rewarding punctuality and punishing lateness, schools teach obedience and teach pupils to accept hierarchies.

Schools also teach pupils individualism and competition by encouraging them to be motivated by extrinsic rewards such as reward trips, grades, and certificates, as well as pitting them against their peers.

Fig. 2 - The hidden curriculum is also taught in schools.

The myth of meritocracy

Bowles and Gintis disagree with the functionalist perspective on meritocracy. They argue education is not a meritocratic system and that pupils are judged on their class position rather than on their efforts and abilities.

Meritocracy teaches us that the various inequalities faced by the working class are due to their own failings. Working-class pupils underperform compared to their middle-class peers, either because they did not try hard enough or because their parents did not ensure they had access to resources and services that would help them with their learning. This is an important part of developing false consciousness; pupils internalise their class position and accept inequality and oppression as legitimate.

Strengths of Marxist theories of education

• Training schemes and programs serve capitalism and they do not tackle the root causes of youth unemployment. They displace the issue. Phil Cohen (1984) argued that the purpose of the Youth Training Scheme (YTS) was to teach values and attitudes needed for the workforce.

• This affirms Bowles and Gintis' point. Training schemes might teach pupils new skills, but they do nothing to improve economic conditions. The skills obtained from apprenticeships are not as valuable in the job market as those obtained from a Bachelor of Arts degree.

• Bowel and Gintis recognise how inequalities are reproduced and passed on from generation to generation.

• Although not all working-class pupils are compliant, many have formed anti-school subcultures. This still benefits the capitalist system, as bad behaviour or defiance is usually punished by society.

Criticisms of Marxist theories on education

• Postmodernists argue that Bowels and Gintis' theory is outdated. Society is a lot more child-centred than it used to be. Education reflects the diversity of society, there are more provisions for disabled pupils, pupils of colour, and immigrants.

• Neo-Marxist Paul Willis (1997) disagrees with Bowles and Gintis. He uses an interactionist approach to argue that working-class pupils can resist indoctrination. Willis' 1997 study found that by developing an anti-school subculture, a 'lad culture', working-class pupils rejected their subjugation by opposing schooling.

• Neoliberals and the New Right argue that the correspondence principle may not be as applicable in today's complex labour market, where employers increasingly require workers to think to meet labour demands rather than being passive.

• Functionalists agree that education performs certain functions, such as role allocation, but disagree that such functions are detrimental to society. In schools, pupils learn and refine skills. This prepares them for the world of work, and role allocation teaches them how to work as a collective for the good of society.

• The Althusserian theory treats pupils as passive conformists.

• McDonald (1980) argues that the Althusserian theory ignores gender. Class and gender relations form hierarchies.

• Althusser's ideas are theoretical and have not been proven; some sociologists have criticised him for a lack of empirical evidence.

• The Althusserian theory is deterministic; the fate of working-class pupils is not determined, and they have the power to change it. Many working class pupils excel in education.

• Postmodernists argue that education allows children to express their abilities and find their place in society. The issue is not education itself, but rather that education is used as a tool to legitimise inequalities.