first proofs 5635T ROUT COM EDU-A/lb_174 x 246 mm 06/07/2011 11:57 Page 58 7 Sociology of education Ralph Leighton Canterbury Christ Church University Overview If not for academic convention, this chapter would be entitled ‘sociologies of education’, as we are not here concerned with a single approach or interpretation. The sociology of education comprises numerous theories and perspectives, supported by an ever-widening range of research methodologies, which seek to understand and explain education within social and/or personal contexts. A historical account of the nature and development of these would not be particularly illuminating as differing and often conflicting insights often arise contemporaneously, while a list of key concepts and terms without appropriate theoretical contexts would limit the reader’s understanding of them and of their interrelationship. This chapter therefore briefly examines the nature of sociology, including some of its conceptual divisions. It then considers the sociology of education in four subsections: the purpose of education, the organisation of education, the experience of education, and what students learn. Subsections should not be regarded as exclusive categories as people in school will encounter purpose, organisation, and content simultaneously to their learning; they are therefore interconnected. The chapter concludes with a brief commentary on current and possible future areas of research interest in the sociologies of education, followed by some questions for consideration by the reader, and some recommended reading to consolidate the brief outlines presented. Introduction To isolate the sociological study of education from the study of other aspects of human society and personal experience would obscure more than it would clarify. Education does not exist for and of itself. Even if we each make sense of our experiences of formal education in different ways – and it is formal education with which we are concerned – we do not arrive at that sense 58 first proofs 5635T ROUT COM EDU-A/lb_174 x 246 mm 06/07/2011 11:57 Page 59 SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION without experiencing other social circumstances or processes, nor without having been exposed to particular social conventions regarding how one can or should make sense of processes and circumstances. Children experience families or other units of primary socialisation before they experience schooling, and it is there that their informal education begins. They are inculcated into others’ perceptions of gender roles and introduced to a range of socially and ethnically determined values as interpreted by those who raise them. Simultaneous to their schooling they will continue to experience family, a range of peer groups and, increasingly, the mass media. Their experiences of social phenomena such as politics and religions are also likely to vary in both nature and extent. They will encounter these in different ways, and interpret them differently, because their parents/carers are different, their friends are different, the media they access will vary, the range of faiths they might encounter is wide, as are available political allegiances, and all can change. Therefore, to fully understand the sociology of education it is necessary to understand the rudiments of sociology which the next section briefly outlines. An overview of sociology Sociology developed from the positivist approach established by Comte, which considered society to be analogous to an organism. From this perspective, social institutions have interdependent functions which, when performed to their full potential, combine to produce a healthy and evolving society; when they are not performing as they should, the society which they comprise will become dysfunctional and stagnate. The relationship between institutions reflects and reinforces the nature of social structure to bring about commonly held objectives and desired outcomes. Education is viewed as that social institution which transmits knowledge and reinforces the familial function of socialisation into prevailing conventions, norms and values; education trains people to ‘fit in’, giving them the skills necessary for employment which meet the demands of the social institution of work. The more complex a society’s structures, the more complex is the nature of its institutions and relationships between them. This is sometimes referred to as a functionalist or consensus perspective and can be further investigated in the writing of, for example, Durkheim and of Merton. Often contrasted to this is the critical approach typified by, but not exclusive to, Marxist analysis. Here social institutions are again considered to reflect the nature and structure of the society in which they exist, but it is argued that these institutions do not evolve but are created and controlled. Rather than commonly held objectives and desires agreed through consensus, it is argued that social institutions are formed and controlled in and by the interests of dominant class. Thus, under capitalism all social institutions reflect, legitimise and perpetuate an unequal distribution of wealth and opportunity; in a patriarchal society, the dominance of men will be legitimised and perpetuated. Adherents of critical sociology view education under capitalism as preparing a compliant workforce with the skills demanded by those who own and control the means of production, reinforcing obedience to authority, and perpetuating false perceptions of equality and opportunity. The works of Gramsci and of Althusser offer insight into some of the premises underlying this approach. While there is a long and strong tradition in sociology of studying social structures and institutions, there developed awareness that people are influenced by each other and by their perceptions and behaviour, as well as by organisations and processes. This gave rise to an emphasis on agency rather than structure as emphasised by Mead and by Goffman. The focus of study moved from what structures do to what people do, identifying the multiplicity of roles people 59 first proofs 5635T ROUT COM EDU-A/lb_174 x 246 mm 06/07/2011 11:57 Page 60 RALPH LEIGHTON play and the complex interaction between these and between them and people’s interpretations of them. These sociologists are concerned with interaction within the classroom, with how teachers and students perceive themselves and each other. More recently, postmodernism has had a significant impact on sociological understanding, with particular relation to identity, commodity and consumerism. Often a more concept-based approach rather than a research-based one, insights offered by Bauman and by Bourdieu illustrate this perspective for the determined student. Readers are best served by considering the evidence and arguments put forward in each case and coming to their own conclusions; there is no obligation to adhere to any one of these perspectives. At times the broad sweep of positivist or structural data and interpretation might serve one’s purpose, at others it might be more helpful to consider social interaction or shared or conflicting interpretations and meanings. Sociology is a tool – perhaps more accurately a toolbox – not a set of off-the-shelf answers. Sociologies of education The purposes of education Responses to the question ‘what is education for?’ vary, depending upon who is asking and who is being asked. Advocates of a biological analogy propose that education functions for the well-being and development of society. Durkheim (1956) argued that education served three main functions: 1 Reinforcing social solidarity through subject content and through shared rituals. 2 Transmission of norms and values, social roles and social stability are reproduced through replication of hierarchies and social expectations. 3 The young are exposed to a variety of skills, the extent to which they show aptitude in these directs them towards suitable employment and maintains the social division of labour. Similarly, Parsons (1965) proposed that the classroom is a microcosm of society in which the young are prepared for their adult roles. They are introduced to social norms and values which are internalised in order that social equilibrium is maintained. Education therefore serves to integrate and to produce conformity. Further, it plays key economic roles in both transmitting technical skills and stratifying the potential workforce, institutionalising and justifying inequalities of reward. Conflict theorists’ responses to the same question are similar in some ways, but differ in tone and substance. They argue that the curriculum – in particular, according to Bowles and Gintis (1976), the hidden curriculum – serves to reinforce the status quo and engender an unquestioning acceptance of authority. Bowles and Gintis also put forward a theory of role allocation – further demonstrated in the research of Willis (1980) in relation to working-class boys and by Spender and Sarah (1980) in relation to women both as students and as teachers – that schools ensure that social inequality is reproduced through education. Far from the egalitarian model put forward by consensus theorists, conflict theorists argue that access to education is differentiated by ethnicity (Gillborn, 1990), gender (Spender and Adler, 1989) and social class (Ball, 2006) and that the social inequalities of access result in the continued social inequalities of outcomes. Thus, from this perspective, while there is an illusion of differential success and rewards based on merit and application, the reality is that education is managed so that those with power – 60 first proofs 5635T ROUT COM EDU-A/lb_174 x 246 mm 06/07/2011 11:57 Page 61 SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION in many societies, white and financially powerful men – ensure that other white men are recruited from amongst their children to inherit that power, ensuring the self-perpetuation of the elite. The organisation of education Consensus and conflict theorists agree that the organisation of education reflects the organisation of society. The more complex the social structures and interrelationships, the more complex the organisation of those structures will appear to be. For consensus theorists this means that schools in modern industrial societies will have hierarchies which reflect other social hierarchies, some subjects will be deemed more important than others and some personnel will be deemed more important, the relative worth in each case reflecting the worth which society places upon that subject or position. Through experiencing ranking in this way, students are prepared for the hierarchies in wider society and learn to accept the authority which goes with them (Davis and Moore, 1953). This apparently increasing complexity is seen as an illusion by conflict theorists, who argue that the relationship between structure and authority is a constant – those with power do all that they can to retain it. Therefore the hierarchies in schools – whether of subjects or of personnel – simply reflect the ruling class imperative to justify inequality by making it an everyday occurrence, acting as part of what Althusser (1971) terms ‘the Ideological State Apparatus’ to control how we think, what we think, and what we think about. This hierarchy of personnel is not only one of head teacher/principal, subject leaders, teachers in a variety of formats. It also refers to hierarchies between students, and between students and staff. A critic of what he perceived as the increasing domination of professionals in all spheres of life, Illich (1973) was less concerned with the indoctrination of learners into capitalist modes of behaviour than with teachers’ exercise of power in managing the process and content of learning to suit their own needs and interests rather than those of their students. Freire (1978) shared this concern but primarily in relation to education and with more emphasis on education as a toll of oppression. From a more conventionally Marxist viewpoint, Bowles and Gintis (1976) indicated that teachers are also victims of oppression, reduced to ‘Jug and Mug’ rote teaching, where the teacher as expert pours her/his knowledge into the pupil as empty vessel; we can be sure that they were well aware of the more colloquial meaning of ‘mug’. The experience of education As indicated in the overview to this chapter, some of the references above to the purposes and organisation of education could justifiably have been included in this subsection. After all, part of the experience of education is its organisation and every element relates to its purpose. Despite claims that education is a meritocracy (Young, 1961) – a term often now misused in education and wider discussion in this way to imply that everyone has an equal chance of success and therefore those who are the most successful are also the most talented – there is a wealth of sociological evidence to the contrary. While largely adhering to a functionalist perspective, Merton (1968) identified latent as well as manifest functions – that there can be hidden and unintended as well as stated or intended consequences of structures. He also noted that not all outcomes are good or beneficial, describing these as dysfunctions. One of the latent dysfunctions he identified in streamed, set or otherwise stratified classrooms is the self-fulfilling prophecy, a concept further developed by the social psychologists Rosenthal and Jacobson (1968), and which extends Becker’s (1963) work on 61 first proofs 5635T ROUT COM EDU-A/lb_174 x 246 mm 06/07/2011 11:57 Page 62 RALPH LEIGHTON deviance. Although Merton was a structural theorist, many of those who have developed this concept have been more concerned with interaction and social relationships than with institutions. Labelling theory states that those with power – for example, teachers – attach labels to what they deem to be acceptable/unacceptable, which could be behaviour or social category. Pupils are then allocated that label so that it becomes their ‘dominant status’ (Goffman, 1990). While it is possible to negotiate labels, such negotiation is often reduced to what Merton described as conformity or rebellion; conformists would accept their label, while rebels might (unintentionally?) exchange one negative label for another. Behaviour might be in regard to punctuality, presentation, language or other social aspects which can be changed, even if the teacher does not recognise the change. Social categories such as ethnicity, gender and social class are clearly much harder to change and therefore the label is more likely to be permanent. That is not to say that there having different expectations of people on the basis of their behaviour or social category is justified, but that teachers do this, then treat their students according to the label. When the students who are given unchallenging work because they are perceived as lacking application fail to make progress, the teacher regards this as evidence that their perception was correct. Students who are excluded for disruptive behaviour might fail to understand the work covered in their enforced absence; when they return from exclusion and therefore fidget and distract their peers, the teacher’s perception is that they are continuing to misbehave, that they have literally not learned their lesson. In both cases there has been a self- fulfilling prophecy. The perception of many teachers that if they have taught the same lesson to all, then all have had the same opportunity to learn is further challenged by post-modernist analyses found in the work of Bourdieu and Passeron (2000) on what they term ‘cultural capital’. Pupils from households with values such as respect for authority, conformity, deferred gratification and diligence, who recognise and use particular speech patterns and who aspire to gaining particular (or any) qualifications, come to school with a distinct advantage over their peers. Such values might be considered middle class, but this concept can be equally applied to gendered or ethnically located social perceptions. Jackson and Marsden’s (1970) much earlier study illustrated how the conflict between home/class values and school values can have a significant impact on learning and academic progress, and on familial and class relationships and allegiances. In turn, Giddens’ (1978) description of structuration ascribes different value systems to different social classes. As Florio-Ruane (2001) puts it, schools operate a ‘culturalectomy’ in their assumption that all learning takes place without awareness or recognition of the varied cultural experiences of pupils and staff. What students learn Class and ethnicity inequalities of access to learning and learner status can be identified in the identification of language structures and codes developed by Labov (1969) and by Bernstein (1973). Labov demonstrated that the non-standard English of a pupil designated as having learning difficulties was highly complex and capable of dealing with abstract notions in a rational manner, but that it was educators’ inability to deconstruct and understand such usage which resulted in the pupil’s negative label. Using a totally different approach, Bernstein identified that teachers and middle-class pupils used what he called an elaborate code while working-class pupils’ code was restricted. These indicated different ways of explaining and understanding so that teachers might not be aware of pupils’ meanings, and vice versa. Despite their different approaches, both studies show that the language brought to and used in the classroom has a significant effect on what is learned and known to be learned. 62 first proofs 5635T ROUT COM EDU-A/lb_174 x 246 mm 06/07/2011 11:57 Page 63 SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION As identified above, there is a surface agreement between consensus and conflict theorists that education is organised to serve the needs of society. However, for consensus theorist this means that the curriculum is structured so that pupils learn what society needs them to learn, while conflict theorists argue that the curricula – both overt and hidden – ensure that pupils learn what the exploiting class requires them to learn. While consensus theorists indicate the employability facilitated by literacy and numeracy, they do not ignore that skills such as understanding one’s place in the social hierarchy are also learned in school. A Marxist analysis is rather more complex. Mannheim (1991) argued that knowledge does not simply consist of a body of absolute truths but is created by social and economic relationships. It reflects the position in society of those who generate or receive that knowledge as well as the corresponding events and dominant ideas of specific historical periods. In other words, ‘knowledge’ does not exist in some separate sphere of truth but is the product of social, historical and economic circumstances. For Mannheim and other conflict theorists, ‘ideology’ constitutes the systems of thought – as well as the ideas and ‘facts’ which these produce – which obscure the reality of social conditions and which therefore serve to reinforce the status quo. Therefore, what schools teach as ‘true’ is one more aspect of the exploitation and proletarian false consciousness upon which capitalism depends. Current and possible future interests As societies change – whether as a result of political or economic influences, population migration and the resultant adjustments to mores, or simply time moving on – sociologists are interested to find out whether what they thought they knew at one time remains true at another, and the extent of and reasons for change/no change. In particular, access to education and the nature and effects of the hidden curriculum remain at the forefront of research, with new and wider foci. Among the more significant additional areas of interest are the professional competences of teachers within what is known as the standards agenda, education as a commodity, and an increasing awareness of international dimensions to all aspects of education; as ever, these research fields often overlap. Access to education continues to relate to differential success, and measures of success, by social class, gender and ethnicity. In addition, sociologists are becoming increasingly aware of and interested in adult education and lifelong learning, examining rates of participation and the life stories of those who participate (David, 2008). It is also recognised that higher education is not always available or perceived as appropriate for and by those seeking skills for employment, leading to considerable research and theorising about the purpose and efficacy of vocational training and qualifications. There continues to be a focus on processes of role allocation, particularly the increasing emphasis given to qualifications which – for some – is creating an image of education as some thing to be bought and consumed; this is the commodification of education. Educational credentials are considered to have replaced the social stratification role formerly performed by family networks and resources, and by social background. Again, social variables such as class, ethnicity and gender are scrutinised. Similarly, the debate on organising education by students’ perceived ability levels also continues, examining whether comprehensive schooling in its various international forms has created equality of opportunity or whether it has inhibited the raising of attainment. One area of interest which brings together opportunity and commodification is discussion around the extent of, reasons for, and implications for themselves and for society, of those who either leave formal education without adequate qualifications or who fail to complete their schooling. 63 first proofs 5635T ROUT COM EDU-A/lb_174 x 246 mm 06/07/2011 11:57 Page 64 RALPH LEIGHTON Education in non-Western societies has traditionally been measured against what is defined by Anglo-Saxon countries, and this largely continues to be the case in the context of global society (Kibera and Kimokoti, 2007). What is different is the increasing awareness of the distinctive voices of sociologists and other researchers and theorists from countries other than those in Europe and North America. Recent research has considered how education might assist the disadvantaged, and the effects of the spread of liberalisation and the development of globalisation on the purposes, quality, and regulation of, and access to, education in regional and global contexts. It is likely that future research will continue to reconsider current and established theories and interpretations of the role of education in everyday lives. Innovations will be scrutinised and new social relationships examined. There can be no doubt that, as research continues to be more multidisciplinary and society more complex, there will always be a need for the diverse insights provided by the sociologies of education. Questions for further investigation 1 What are the benefits and limitations of looking at education as a social system rather than as a social experience? 2 Can education be understood in its own right, or must it be viewed in relation to other aspects of society? 3 What is the relationship between formal and informal education, and which has the greater influence? 4 To what extent do our social circumstances influence the education we experience? Suggested further reading Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J-C. (2000) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. An intellectually challenging and densely argued text, the authors demonstrate the complexity of postmodern relationships and cultural commodities. Education is not seen as ‘out there’ or separate from the common experience, but part of the everyday as both cause and effect of social reproduction. Mills, C.W. (1980) The Sociological Imagination. Middlesex: Penguin. This classic text goes beyond describing sociology to clarifying its potential for social analysis and to reinvigorate one’s ‘capacity for astonishment’ (p. 14). The final chapter ‘On Intellectual Craftsmanship’ should be required reading for all aspiring social scientists. Spender, D. and Sarah, E. (Eds.) (1980) Learning to Lose: Sexism and Education. London: The Women’s Press. While this text is over 30 years old, it is less dated than the editors might have hoped it would be by now. Education is scrutinised from a clear and radically feminist perspective, simultaneously raising awareness that gender, age, class, sexuality and ethnicity are not separate spheres of existence but are overlapping and interdependent experiences. White, R. with Brockington, D. (1983) Tales Out of School: Consumers’ Views of British Education. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. Unlike many researchers into education, the authors explicitly invited and considered the views and insights of children who experience it. This text is an outstanding example of sensitive research methodology and highly significant responses. 64 first proofs 5635T ROUT COM EDU-A/lb_174 x 246 mm 06/07/2011 11:57 Page 65 SOCIOLOGY OF EDUCATION References Althusser, L. (1971) Lenin and Philosophy and Other Essays. New York, NY: Monthly Review Press. Ball, S.J. (2006) Education Policy and Social Class: the selected works of Stephen J. Ball. London: Routledge. Becker, H.S. (1963) Outsiders: Studies in the Sociology of Deviance. Glencoe: Free Press. Bernstein, B. (1973) Class, Codes and Control Vol. 1: Theoretical studies towards a sociology of language. London: Paladin. Bourdieu, P. and Passeron, J-C. (2000) Reproduction in Education, Society and Culture. London: Sage. Bowles, S. and Gintis, H. (1976) Schooling in Capitalist America. London: Routledge & Kegan Paul. David, M.E. (2008) ‘Social inequalities, gender and lifelong learning: A feminist, sociological review of work, family and education’, International Journal of Sociology and Social Policy, 28, 7/8, pp. 260–272. Davis, K. and Moore, W. (1953) ‘Some principles of stratification’, American Sociological Review, 18, 4, pp. 394–397 Durkheim, E. (1956) Education and Sociology. Glencoe: Free Press. Florio-Ruane, S. (2001) Teacher Education and the Cultural Imagination: Autobiography, Conversation, and Narrative. London: Lawrence Erlbaum. Freire, P. (1978) Pedagogy of the Oppressed. Middlesex: Penguin. Giddens, A. (1978) The Class Structure of the Advanced Societies. London: Hutchinson. Gillborn, D. (1990) Race, Ethnicity and Education: teaching and learning in multi-ethnic schools. London: Unwin Hyman. Goffman, E. (1990) Stigma: Notes on the Management of Spoiled Identity. Middlesex: Penguin. Illich, I. (1973) Deschooling Society. Middlesex: Penguin. Jackson, B. and Marsden, D. (1970) Education and the Working Class. Middlesex: Penguin. Kibera, L.W. and Kimokoti, A.C. (2007) Fundamentals of Sociology of Education: with reference to Africa. Nairobi: Nairobi University Press. Labov, W. (1969) ‘The logic of Non-Standard English’, in Keddie, N. (1978) (Ed.) Tinker, Taylor . . . The Myth of Cultural Deprivation. Middlesex: Penguin. Mannheim, K. (1991) Ideology and Utopia: an introduction to the sociology of knowledge. London: Routledge. Merton, R.K. (1968) Social Theory and Social Structure. Glencoe: Free Press. Parsons, T. (1965) Politics and Social Structure. New York, NY: Free Press. Rosenthal, R. and Jacobson, L. (1968) Pygmalion in the Classroom. New York, NY: Holt, Reinhart and Winston. Spender, D. and Adler, S. (1989) Invisible Women: the schooling scandal. London: Women’s Press. Spender, D. and Sarah, E. (Eds.) (1980) Learning to Lose: Sexism and Education. London: The Women’s Press. Willis, P. (1980) Learning to Labour: How working class kids get working class jobs. Farnborough: Gower. Young, M. (1961) The Rise of the Meritocracy, 1870–2033: an essay on education and equality. London: Thames and Hudson. 65