marxist theory in education pdf

Marxism and Education

Renewing the Dialogue, Pedagogy, and Culture

• © 2011
• Peter E. Jones

You can also search for this editor in PubMed   Google Scholar

Part of the book series: Marxism and Education (MAED)

5660 Accesses

26 Citations

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this book

• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Compact, lightweight edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info
• Durable hardcover edition

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Other ways to access

Licence this eBook for your library

Institutional subscriptions

Table of contents (10 chapters)

Front matter, introduction and overview: marxism and education—dialogues on pedagogy and culture, marxism and culture: educational perspectives, culture, class, and curriculum: a reflective essay.

• Terry Wrigley

Learning to Labor with Feeling: Class, Gender, and Emotion in Childcare Education and Training

• Helen Colley

“For a People’s Clydebank”: Learning the Ethic of Solidarity amidst the Wreckage of Neoliberalism in Contemporary Scotland

• Chik Collins

Marxism and the Culture of Educational Practice

Learning the feeling rules: exploring hochschild’s thesis on the alienating experience of emotional labor, adult education and the “matter” of consciousness in marxist-feminism.

• Sara Carpenter, Shahrzad Mojab

A Little Night Reading: Marx, Assessment, and the Professional Doctorate in Education

• Victoria Perselli

Marxism and Education: Advancing Theory

From relational ontology to transformative activist stance on development and learning: expanding vygotsky’s (chat) project.

• Anna Stetsenko

Activity, Activity Theory, and the Marxian Legacy

Critical pedagogy as revolutionary practice.

• Peter McLaren

Back Matter

• adult education

About this book

"As faith in capitalism continues to wobble, as radical educators sense a new energy and interest in alternatives, this volume brings fresh, bracing perspectives to the struggle. Robust and nuanced new Marxist scholarship animates cases ranging from nursery teachers to Venezuela s education reforms, and offers invaluable, powerful critical tools for those seeking to rejuvenate dialogues in Marxism and education." - Tara Fenwick, Professor of Professional Education, University of Stirling"Congratulations to Peter E. Jones and the other contributors to this excellent volume - one that reflects the continuing value of Marxist thought in the field of educational research and that is also an admirable addition to the important project set in motion by Glenn Rikowskiand Anthony Green. All of us in the field of Marxist educational research and practice owe them and all those who carry on this projectour gratitude." - Paula Allman, author of Critical Education Against Global Capitalism: Karl Marx and Revolutionary Critical Education

About the authors

Bibliographic information.

Book Title : Marxism and Education

Book Subtitle : Renewing the Dialogue, Pedagogy, and Culture

Editors : Peter E. Jones

Series Title : Marxism and Education

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1057/9780230119864

Publisher : Palgrave Macmillan New York

eBook Packages : Palgrave Education Collection , Education (R0)

Copyright Information : Peter E. Jones 2011

Hardcover ISBN : 978-0-230-11169-1 Published: 12 July 2011

Softcover ISBN : 978-1-349-29399-5 Published: 12 July 2011

eBook ISBN : 978-0-230-11986-4 Published: 01 August 2011

Series ISSN : 2946-3114

Series E-ISSN : 2946-3122

Edition Number : 1

Number of Pages : IX, 248

Topics : Philosophy of Education , Political Theory , Education, general , Educational Philosophy , Curriculum Studies , Sociology of Education

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Academia.edu no longer supports Internet Explorer.

To browse Academia.edu and the wider internet faster and more securely, please take a few seconds to  upgrade your browser .

Enter the email address you signed up with and we'll email you a reset link.

• We're Hiring!
• Help Center

Marxism and Educational Theory

2007, Marxism and Educational Theory

Related Papers

Renewing Dialogues in Marxism and Education: Openings

Glenn Rikowski

Since the mid-1990s, Marxist educational theory, research, and policy analysis has experienced an upturn. By exploring Marxist theory in the age of neoliberalism, this edited collection examines the dialectic between race and power in education. The essays embody an underlying set of principles and practices that seek to maximize inclusiveness and dialogue between critical theoretical traditions such as postmodernism, Critical Realism, Feminism, and "anti-racism" in order to critique current educational institutions, policies, and practices. Finally, the book explores phenomena such as globalization, commodification, and capitalization in relation to key aspects of the contemporary educational landscape. The essays extend from the local to the global and encompass historical and contemporary developments in the political economy of education.

Why Marxism? Why Marxist educational theory? Through addressing these questions, this paper proclaims the importance of Marxism as a theory that intellectually disrupts and ruptures capitalist society and its educational forms. With reference to the work of John Holloway, it is argued that the significance of Marxism resides in its capacity to pinpoint fragilities and weaknesses in the constitution of capital. Grasping these fragilities in the rule of capital in contemporary social life sharpens the critical edge of any politics aimed at social transformation. Marxist educational theory plays an important role in this enterprise. These points are illustrated through consideration of the following ideas and phenomena: fragility, crisis, critique, negativity and social form(s). It is argued that fragility must be the starting point as Marxism is primarily a theory of capitalist weaknesses, and not the opposite: a theory of capitalist domination. Following Holloway, Marxism is a theory against society, rather than just another mainstream theory of society. Against Holloway, it is argued that the forms that fragilities for labour take also need to be understood. Paradoxically, our strength vis-à-vis capital is also the place for apprehending the fragilities and dependencies of labour. This vicious duality also exists in terms of crises in capitalism, and this flows into the phenomena of critique and negativity too. Finally, on the basis of this theorisation, the doors of capitalist hell are opened through a consideration of social forms in general and commodity forms in particular and their relations to educational processes and institutions. It is at this point that Marxist educational theory enters the stage, although in a transfigured form. In 1997, I wrote an article for the British Journal of Sociology of Education called ‘Scorched Earth: Prelude to Rebuilding Marxist Educational Theory’. Twenty-one years later, this paper can be viewed as my definitive first element in a programme of rebuilding Marxist educational theory.

Cadernos do GPOSSHE On-line

The article rests substantially on the work of John Holloway, especially his early articles in Common Sense: Journal of the Edinburgh Conference of Socialist Economists. On this foundation, it is argued, firstly, that the importance of Marxism resides in its capacity to pinpoint fragilities and weaknesses in the constitution, development and rule of capital in contemporary society. Understanding these fragilities sharpens the critical edge of any movements aimed at social transformation out of the madhouse of capital.

Educational Theory

Frank Margonis

Marxism Against Postmodernism in Educational Theory, in: D. Hill, P. McLaren, M. Cole & G. Rikowski (eds.), Lanham MD: Lexington Books

derek r. ford

With the contradictions of capitalism heightening and intensifying, and with new social movements spreading across the globe, revolutionary transformation is once again on the agenda. For radicals, the most pressing question is: How can we transform ourselves and our world into something else, something just? In Marx, Capital, and Education, Curry Stephenson Malott and Derek R. Ford develop a "critical pedagogy of becoming" that is concerned with precisely this question. The authors boldly investigate the movement toward communism and the essential role that critical pedagogy can play in this transition. Performing a novel and educational reading of Karl Marx and radical theorists and activists, Malott and Ford present a critical understanding of the past and present, of the underlying logics and (often opaque) forces that determine the world-historical moment. Yet Malott and Ford are equally concerned with examining the specific ways in which we can teach, learn, study, and struggle ourselves beyond capitalism; how we can ultimately overthrow the existing order and institute a new mode of production and set of social relations. This incisive and timely book, penned by two militant teachers, organizers, and academics, reconfigures pedagogy and politics. Educators and organizers alike will find that it provides new ammunition in the struggle for the world that we deserve. Advanced praise: "In Marx, Capital, and Education, Malott and Ford advance one of the boldest and [most] unmitigated analyses of education in the history of the field. Their unflinching and scholarly critique of the relationship between capitalism and compulsory education helps to reground the field of critical pedagogy, framing a renewed ‘revolutionary Marxist pedagogy.’ Their careful undertaking of Marx and contemporary scholars of Marx situate this text as a must-read across multiple disciplines including philosophy, political science, government, and education - a true classic in the making." (Sandy Grande, Associate Professor and Chair, Education Department, Connecticut College) "This is an essential text for all of those interested in the continuing potential of Marxism as an analytic tool and as a political movement, with implications for critical pedagogy and a truly liberatory education. It traces the history of the use of Marxist theory in education in ways that are insightful, and it provides a key set of categories for reading and using Marx in a ‘postmodern’ age. A rare achievement in educational scholarship." (Dennis Carlson, Full Professor, Department of Educational Leadership, Miami University)

A paper prepared for the Fourth Historical Materialism Annual Conference 2007, School of Oriental & African Studies, University of London

Sona Kazemi

Spyros Themelis

RELATED PAPERS

Journal of clinical …

Sylvain Quessy

Paediatrica Indonesiana

Agung Triono

The Astrophysical Journal

Eberhard Möbius

PROCEEDING FOR GLOBAL TOURISM CONFERENCE (GTC) 2021

Mshari aljabr

Daniel Gile

Cancer Genetics and Cytogenetics

Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and Theoretical

Erica Flapan

Biotechnology Letters - BIOTECHNOL LETT

jean-marc belin

Migraciones. Publicación del Instituto Universitario de Estudios sobre Migraciones

Daniela Poblete Godoy

Osteoarthritis and cartilage / OARS, Osteoarthritis Research Society

Jutta Ellermann

Matteo Raschietti

Shafira Ghaliyah Amirah

abderahim gheris

Journal of neurosurgery

GEORGE MENDES

Scandinavian Journal of Immunology

Carmelo Bernabeu

bioRxiv (Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory)

Cassilda Maria Pereira

Revue Neurologique

Jean-Christophe Antoine

Revue des études arméniennes 33

Tim Greenwood

Aldebaran VI -

Fiorella Pagotto

IOP Conference Series: Materials Science and Engineering

Saiful Jabar

Zekeri Momoh

BMC Health Services Research

Luis Salvador-Carulla

Separation and Purification Technology

Liat Birnhack

tty29981 tty29981

RELATED TOPICS

•   We're Hiring!
•   Help Center
• Find new research papers in:
• Health Sciences
• Earth Sciences
• Cognitive Science
• Mathematics
• Computer Science
• Academia ©2024

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

The Marxist Perspective on Education

According to Traditional Marxists, school teaches children to passively obey authority and it reproduces and legitimates class inequality.

Table of Contents

Last Updated on March 2, 2023 by Karl Thompson

Traditional Marxists see the education system as working in the interests of ruling class elites. According to the Marxist perspective on education, the system performs three functions for these elites:

• It reproduces class inequality – middle class children are more likely to succeed in school and go onto middle class jobs than working class children.
• It legitimates class inequality – through the ‘myth of meritocracy’.
• It works in the interests of capitalist employers – by socialising children to accept authority, hierarchy and wage-labour.

The main source for the ideas below is Bowles and Ginits (1976): Schooling in Capitalist America. These are the two main sociologists associated with Traditional Marxist perspective on education.

The reproduction of class inequality

This means that class inequalities are carried from one generation to the next.

Middle class parents use their material and cultural capital to ensure their children get into the best schools and the top sets. This means that the wealthier pupils tend to get the best education and then go onto to get middle class jobs. Meanwhile working class children are more likely to get a poorer standard of education and end up in working class jobs. In this way class inequality is reproduced

The Legitimation of class inequality

Marxists argue that in reality money determines how good an education you get, but people do not realise this because schools spread the ‘ myth of meritocracy ’ – in school we learn that we all have an equal chance to succeed and that our grades depend on our effort and ability. Thus if we fail, we believe it is our own fault. This legitimates or justifies the system because we think it is fair when in reality it is not.

This has the effect of controlling the working classes – if children grow up believing they have had a fair chance then they are less likely to rebel and try to change society as part of a Marxist revolutionary movement.

If you’d like to find out more about the above two concepts please see this post on ‘ the illusion of educational equality ‘ in which I go into more depth about educational realities and myths, as theorised by Bowles and Gintis.

Teaching the skills future capitalist employers need

Bowles and Gintis suggested that there was a correspondence between values learnt at school and the way in which the workplace operates. The values, they suggested, are taught through the ‘Hidden Curriculum’. The Hidden Curriculum consists of those things that pupils learn through the experience of attending school rather than the main curriculum subjects taught at the school. So pupils learn those values that are necessary for them to tow the line in menial manual jobs, as outlined below.

SCHOOL VALUES  Correspond to  WORK VALUES

• Passive subservience   of pupils to teachers corresponds to Passive subservience of workers to managers
• Acceptance of hierarchy (authority of teachers)  corresponds to Authority of managers
• Motivation by external rewards (grades not learning)  corresponds to being Motivated by wages not the joy of the job

If you want a more in-depth post on this 1976 Marxist Theory you might like to read this post: Bowles and Gintis’ Correspondence Principle .

Evaluations of the Traditional Marxist Perspective on Education

Positive evaluations.

• There is an overwhelming wealth of evidence that schools do reproduce class inequality because the middle classes do much better in education because the working classes are more likely to suffer from material and cultural deprivation . Meanwhile, the middle classes have more material capital, more cultural capital (Reay) and because the 1988 Education Act benefited them (Ball Bowe and Gewirtz).
• The existence of private schools is strong supporting evidence for Marxism – the wealthiest 7% of families in the United Kingdom are able to buy their children a better education which in turn gives them a better chance of getting into the top universities.
• There is strong evidence for the reproduction of class inequality if we look at elite jobs, such as Medicine, the law and journalism. A Disproportionately high number of people in these professions were privately educated.

Negative evaluations

• Henry Giroux, says the theory is too deterministic. He argues that working class pupils are not entirely molded by the capitalist system, and do not accept everything that they are taught – Paul Willis’ study of the ‘Lads’ also suggests this.
• There is less evidence that pupils think school is fair – Paul Willis’ Lads new the system was biased towards the middle classes for example, and many young people in deprived areas are very aware that they are getting a poor quality of education compared to those in private schools.
• Education can actually harm the Bourgeois – many left wing, Marxist activists are university educated for example.
• The correspondence principle may not be as applicable in today’s complex labour market where employers increasingly require workers to be able to think rather than to just be passive robots.

Neo- Marxism: Paul Willis: – Learning to Labour (1977)

Willis’ research involved visiting one school and observing and interviewing 12 working class rebellious boys about their attitude to school during their last 18 months at school and during their first few months at work.

Willis argues pupils rebelling are evidence that not all pupils are brainwashed into being passive, subordinate people as a result of the hidden curriculum.

Willis therefore criticises Traditional Marxism.   He says that pupils are not directly injected with the values and norms that benefit the ruling class, some actively reject these. These pupils also realise that they have no real opportunity to succeed in this system.

BUT, Willis still believes that this counter-school culture still produces workers who are easily exploited by their future employers:

The Counter School Culture

Willis described the friendship between these 12 boys (or the lads) as a counter-school culture. Their value system was opposed to that of the school. This value system was characterised as follows:

1. The lads felt superior to the teachers and other pupils 2. They attached no value to academic work, more to ‘having a laff’ 3. The objective of school was to miss as many lessons as possible, the reward for this was status within the group 4. The time they were at school was spent trying to win control over their time and make it their own.

Attitudes to future work

• They looked forward to paid manual work after leaving school and identified all non-school activities (smoking, going out) with this adult world, and valued such activities far more than school work.
• The lads believed that manual work was proper work, and the type of jobs that hard working pupils would get were all the same and generally pointless.
• Their counter school culture was also strongly sexist.

Evaluations of Willis

• On a positive note this study does recognise the fact that working class lads are not simply passive victims of a ‘middle class’ education system – they play an active role in resisting that system.
• The study lacks representativeness – Willis conducted his research with a sample of only 12 working class white boys in just one secondary school, and most of the research was built on interviews with just 6 of these boys.
• Willis has been criticised for being overly sympathetic with the boys – at one point when he was with them on a coach going on a school trip and they were vandalising the bus he just let them do it, he could be accused of going native!
• This study is now over 50 years old and so one has to question whether it is still relevant – the education system, experience of education and working classes are so much different today compared to the mid 1970s!

For a more in depth summary of Paul Willis, please see this post which focuses more on the research methods.

Contemporary research applied to Marxism

A range of contemporary research evidence offers broad support for the view that education continues to reproduce social class inequalities, or at the very least fails to prevent it by improving social mobility in England and Wales.

The disadvantage gap

According to some quantitative research by the Institute for Education and the Nuffield Foundation (2022) there is a persistent- disadvantage gap among pupils by GCSES .

In 2018/19 only 41% of pupils eligible for free school meals achieved at least grade 4 or C in English. and maths compared to 69% of pupils from wealthier backgrounds who are not eligible for free school meals.

This means there is an education attainment gap of around 28% at GCSEs when we compare the poorest students with the rest.

While the results of all students have improved significantly since 2007/08 this disadvantage gap has remained almost level.

The disadvantage gap continues post-16

According to some research conducted in 2021 by the Education Policy Institute there is also significant disadvantage gap in post-16 education .

Disadvantaged students achieved on average 3 grades less across their best three subjects at A-level or BTEC compared to non-disadvantaged students, with disadvantaged students being defined as those who had been eligible for free school meals during at least one of their previous six years at school.

The study also found that disadvantaged students were more less likely to take the more prestigious A-levels and more likely to take BTECs, the later being correlated with lower wages compared to A-levels later on in work, suggesting that the education system reproduces class inequality overall.

Lockdowns harmed poor kids more than rich kids

According to The Sutton Trust’s October 2022 briefing on Education Recovery and Catch Up students from lower socio-economic backgrounds are much less confident than students from higher socio-economic backgrounds that they have caught up with lost learning caused by the Tory government’s chosen policy of locking down schools during the pandemic.

Further research by the Sutton Trust also reveals that the Pandemic and the chosen government response to the Pandemic had a differential effect on the career aspirations of young people.

Children from Independent schools were less likely to change their career aspirations due to covid compared to children from state grammar or independent schools.

This triangulates with the findings when we compare changing aspirations with household deprivation. Children from the most deprived areas were more likely to change their career aspirations because of Covid than those from the least deprived areas:

Although you could interpret the evidence above as criticising the Marxist perspective on education:

When schools close, the confidence and aspirations of poor kids decline more than for rich kids, which you might interpret as evidence that when schools are open they have a relatively positive impact on the social mobility of poor kids.

HOWEVER, given the pre-pandemic research above, it’s clear that schools and colleges over all have done very little indeed to improve social mobility in England and Wales between 2007/08 and 2019, the year before lockdowns, and lockdowns were still a government policy which harmed poor kids more than rich kids.

Exposure to elite peers helps rich kids more than poor kids

Moving away from the UK, A 2022 study from Norway found that exposure to elite peers from elite educated families increases the probability of a student themselves enrolling for elite education. 

The study found that if students from low socioeconomic backgrounds are exposed to elite peers, they are more likely to enrol in elite graduate programmes, but the same is true if students from higher socioeconomic backgrounds are exposed to elite peers. 

And the ‘enrolment to elite universities effect’ is twice as much for rich students compared to poor students. 

This means that elite-peers do more to reinforce the reproduction of class inequality than to encourage social mobility.

Other Related Posts on the Marxist Perspective on Education

• The Correspondence Principle – a more in depth at this aspect of Marxist educational theory
• Evaluating the Marxist Perspective on Education
• Cultural Capital and its effects on education – Cultural capital is a key Marxist concept!
• Arguments for and against private schools .

Other related posts on other aspects of Marxism and related perspectives on Education

• Summary of the key ideas of Marxism
• The Functionalist Perspective on Education
• The New Right’s View on Education
• Sociological Perspectives on Education Summary Grid

Sources/ Find out More

• Bowles and Gintis (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America
• Paul Willis (1977) Learning to Labour

Essay Plans/ Revision Resources

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my sociology of education revision notes bundle – which contains the following:

• 34 pages of revision notes
• mind maps in pdf and png format – 9 in total, covering various topics within the sociology of education
• short answer exam practice questions and exemplar answers
• how to write sociology essays, including 7 specific templates and model answers on the sociology of education

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

4 thoughts on “The Marxist Perspective on Education”

• Pingback: The Hidden Curriculum and School Ethos – ReviseSociology

The moment you put race in the middle, credibility goes out the window.

Your generalizations are why this ideology fails, as it fails to identify key individual factors rather than reducing a complex plethora of things in to an almost radical view of things.

what does WWC stand for?

Who do I cite as the author of this article? and what page number? thank you

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

Marxist Perspective on Education

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Marx and Engels themselves wrote little about education. Nonetheless, there is a long history of Marxists who have argued that education can both enforce and undermine capitalism.
• Sociologists Bowes and Gintis argue that education serves three main purposes: the reproduction of class inequality, its legitimization, and the creation of a compliant capitalist workforce.
• Althusser and his successor, Bordieu, believed that education served to benefit the ruling class both by spreading capitalist ideology and transmitting cultural capital, giving more legitimacy to those in the know.
• Critics have pointed out that those “exploited” by the education system are aware of their status, and do not blindly accept the values of educational institutions.

Marxist Views on Education

Although Marx and Engels wrote little on education, Marxism has educational implications that have been dissected by many. In essence, Marxists believe that education can both reproduce capitalism and have the potential to undermine it.

However, in the current system, education works mainly to maintain capitalism and reproduce social inequality (Cole, 2019).

According to Marx and Engels, the transformation of society will come about through class struggle and actions — such as the actions that the working-class proletariat can take to disempower the ruling bourgeoisie.

Marx and Engels emphasize the role of the spread of “enlightened” opinion throughout society as a way of creating class change.

Nonetheless, Marx and Engels both believed that fostering a full knowledge of what conditions under and what it would mean to overthrow capitalism was necessary to enact basic structural change.

Marx believed that the bourgeoisie failed to offer a real education; instead, education is used to spread bourgeois morals (Marx, 1847). Marx and Engles also, however, believed that workers are educated by doing labor and that education in schools should even be combined with labor.

The theorists felt that this combination of education with labor would increase awareness of the exploitative nature of capitalism.

Marxists were interested in two related issues regarding education under capitalism: firstly, how and to what extent education reproduces capitalism, and, secondly, the ways in which education in capitalist societies could undermine capitalism.

Bowes and Gintes (1976)

Bowes and Gintes (1976) were the two sociologists most associated with the Traditional Marxist perspective in education.

In the view of Marxist, educational systems in capitalist systems perform three functions of the elite, or bourgeoisie class: reproducing class inequality, legitimizing class inequality, and working in the interests of capitalist employers.

The Reproduction of Class Inequality

The process of reproducing class inequality works like this: Middle-class parents use their cultural and material capital to ensure that their children get into the best schools and then go on to achieve highly in those schools.

This can happen through giving children one-on-one instruction with tutors, paying for private school tuition, or, in extreme cases, making donations directly to elite schools that they want their children to attend.

All of this capital meandering means wealthier students tend to get the best education and then go on to get jobs in the middle class.

Meanwhile, working-class children, who are more likely to get a poor education, are funneled into working-class jobs.

The Legitimization of Class Inequality

Marxists argue that, while in reality money determines the quality of one”s education, schools spread a “myth of meritocracy” to convince students that they all have an equal chance of success and that one”s grade simply depends on their effort and ability.

Thus, if a student fails, it is their fault.

This has the net effect of controlling the working classes. Believing that they had a fair chance, the proletariat became less likely to rebel and attempt to change society through a Marxist revolutionary movement (Thompson, 2016).

Bowes and Gintis explain this concept through the idea that students in the capitalist education system are alienated by their labor. Students have a lack of control over their education and their course content.

School motivates, instead, by creating a system of grades and other external rewards. This creates often destructive competition among students who compete to achieve the best grades in what is seen, at least superficially, as a meritocratic system.

Reproduction and legitimization of social inequality – Althusser

Althusser saw himself as building on the conditions that Marx theorized necessary for capitalist production through emphasizing the role of ideology in the social relationships that permeate people’s lives.

He believed that all institutions, schools included, drilled the values of capitalism into pupils, perpetuating the economic system. In this way, he considered education to be part of the “ideological state apparatus.”

Althusser says this influence perpetrates education in multiple ways. This ideological state apparatus, according to Althusser, worked by injecting students with ideas that keep people unaware of their exploitation and make them easy to control.

Secondly, he believed that this injection of ideas produces complaints and an unquestioning workforce, passively accepting their roles (Ferguson, 2018).

Althusser’s successor, Pierre Bordieu (1971) also believed that the education system and other cultural institutions and practices indirectly benefited the bourgeoisie — the capital class — through passing down “cultural capital.”

Cultural capital is the accumulation of knowledge, behaviors, and skills that someone can use to demonstrate their competence and social status, allowing them to wield influence.

Working in The Interests of Capitalist Employers

Finally, Bowes and Gintis (1976) suggested that there is a correspondence between the values taught by schools and the ways in which the workplace operates.

They suggest that these values are taught through a so-called hidden curriculum , which consists of the things that students learn through the experience of attending school rather than the main curriculum thoughts at the school.

Some parallels between the values taught at school and those used to exploit workers in the workplace include:

The passive subservience of pupils to teachers, which corresponds to the passive subservience of workers to managers;

An acceptance of hierarchy – the authority of teachers and administrators over students — corresponding to the authority of managers over employees;

Motivation by external rewards (such as grades over learning), which corresponds to workers being motivated by wages rather than the job of a job.

Correspondence Principle

The Key concept in Bowes and Gintis’ Schooling in Capitalist America (1976) is that the reproduction of the social relations of production is facilitated and illustrated by the similarities between how social relations in education and in production work.

In order to reproduce the social relations of production, the education system must try to teach people to be properly subordinate and render them sufficiently confused that they are unable to gather together and take control of their material existence — such as through seizing the means of production.

Specifically, Bowes and Gintis (1976) argued, the education system helps develop everything from a student”s personal demeanor to their modes of self-presentation, self-image, and social-class identifications which are crucial to being seen as competent and hirable to future employers.

In particular, the social relations of education — the relationships between administrators and teachers, teachers and students, students and students, and students and their work — replicate a hierarchical division of labor. This means that there is a clear hierarchy of power from administrators to teachers to students.

The Myth of Meritocracy

One such aspect of the capitalist education system, according to Bowes and Gintis, is the “myth of meritocracy “.

While Marxists argue that class background and money determine how good of an education people get, the myth of meritocracy posits that everyone has an equal chance at success. Grades depend on effort and ability, and people’s failures are wholly their fault.

This casts a perception of a fair education system when, in reality, the system — and who succeeds or fails in it — is deeply rooted in class (Thompson, 2016).

Criticisms of the Marxist Perspective on Education

The Marxist perspectives on education have been criticized for several reasons.

The traditional Marxist perspective on education has been evaluated both positively and negative. On the affirmative side, there is a wealth of evidence that schools reproduce class inequality.

In particular, evidence suggests that those from the middle and upper classes do much better in education because the working classes are more likely to suffer from material and cultural deprivation. Meanwhile, the middle classes have high material and cultural capital, along with laws that directly benefit them.

Another point in favor of the Marxist view of education is the existence of private schools. In these schools, the very wealthiest families can buy a better education for their families. This gives their children a substantially greater chance of attending an elite university.

There is also strong evidence for the reproduction of class inequality in elite jobs, such as medicine, law, and journalism. A disproportionately high number of people in these professions were educated in private institutions and come from families who are, in turn, highly educated (Thompson, 2016).

On the other hand, sociologists such as Henry Giroux (1983) have criticized the traditional Marxist view on education as being too deterministic. He argued that working classes are not entirely molded by the capitalist system and do not accept everything they are taught blindly. Paul Willis’ study of the working-class “lads” is one example of lower-class youths actively rejecting the values taught by education.

There is also less evidence that pupils believe school is fair than evidence that pupils believe school is unfair. The “Lads” that Paul Willis studied (2017) were well aware that the educational system was biased toward the middle classes, and many people in poorly-funded schools know that they are receiving a lesser quality of education than those in private schools.

• The Functionalist Perspective of Education

Bourdieu, P., & Bordieu, P. (1971). Formes et degrés de la conscience du chômage dans l”Algérie coloniale. Manpower and Unemployment Research in Africa , 36-44.

Bowes, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Captalist America.

Cole, M. (2019). Theresa May, the hostile environment and public pedagogies of hate and threat: The case for a future without borders . Routledge.

Ferguson, S. (2018). Social reproduction: what’s the big idea? Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53 (3), 257-293.

Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis.  Harvard Educational Review ,  53 (3), 257-293.

Marx, K., Engels, F. (1847). Manifesto of the communist party .

Thompson, M. (2016). Assess the Marxist View of the Role of Education in Society .

Willis, P. (2017). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs . Routledge.