Language

Don't you have an account with Pajhwok Afghan News?

Click here to subscribe.

author avatar
30 May 2017 - 11:32
author avatar
30 May 2017 - 11:32

Introduction

The sociological analysis of education. The aim of the paper is to analyse the views of the theories on the functions of education.

The Concept of Education

Education is a process that starts with the birth of a person and never ends, going till the last day of the person. However, a limited view on education suggests that it is related to the school and university instruction. Thereby, under some opinions education is limited to class room training and is formal in nature. The success of education is measured through the examinations, while education in such a case is not incidental but intentional (Rather, 2007, p.5). By contrast, in the broader sense, education reflects the complete experience that is obtained by a person from birth to death. According to this view, education is not limited to communication of information by a tutor or to the knowledge acquisition by the student. Education implies the total personality development and, accordingly, learning through different agencies, including street, home, society, and school (Mannheim and Stewart, 2001, p.28).

Education has various functions and purposes, depending on the environment and the viewpoint on education. For example, in human life education implies the development of personal abilities, character-building, personality development, preparation for adult life when child education is considered. From the viewpoint of a state education implies the creation of useful citizens, the development of a sense of community across the population, protection and development of culture, promotion of social welfare, and national development. From the national perspective, education implies maintenance of communal traditions and interests, alignment of political ambitions across different groups, fulfilment for the need for skilled workers, and evolution of a national feeling (Chandra and Sharma, 2004, p.16). The two approaches to the purposes and functions of education can be explored from the viewpoint of functionalism and Neo-Marxism, as these two theories posit different approaches to education. Functionalism considers that education discourages inequality and promotes equal income distribution. In contrast, Neo-Marxism argues that the function of education is determined by the capitalist society to reflect the relationship between different classes in the society and to support the economic system of a state (Feinberg and Soltis, 2004, p.53).

Functionalism

The concept of education and the sociology of education can be viewed from different viewpoints and from various theoretical perspectives. For example, the functionalist approach suggests that education is supported by the need to expand schooling in order to contribute to a highly industrialised modern society. Education implies the development of skills and attitudes that are required for a constantly changing social and economic world. In this respect functionalists assume that the modern school implies the selection of individual in accordance with merit and talent. In this respect, education at school discourages income distribution and authority that are based on family background, sex, religion, or race (Feinberg and Soltis, 2004, p.43). It is suggested that according to the theoretical view of functionalism schools ensure both individual and social benefits, serving both purposes at a time. On the social level they ensure the development of an individual’s skills and attitudes that are required by the society. On the individual level they improve the ability of an individual to achieve appropriate income distribution, prestige, and authority (Feinberg and Soltis, 2004, p.43). Functionalists argue that education and social educational system in particular ensure the allocation of the talented individuals to the occupations that are functionally most prominent to the society (Berg, 2002, p.169).

Although functionalism discourages income distribution that is based on initial conditions, such as background, inequality is functionally necessary. The same level of pay and status for everyone would imply the unpreparedness of people to accept more difficult and responsible jobs (Morrow and Torres, 1995, p.41). Nevertheless, the theory of functionalism assumes that all individuals start from the same level, while in reality people have different cultural capital, confidence, attitudes, and manners that may imply privileges in schools. Besides, functionalism assumes a value consensus, when every person agrees on the most prominent jobs and accepts the same values to be passes through society by schools. The society agrees that to be a neurosurgeon requires much more talent and training than to be a nurse, thus offering higher rewards for surgeons (Kirby et al., 2000, p.187).Another point of criticism in relation to functionalism is associated with the value consensus, or over-emphasis on consensus and order. Functionalists do not accept the possibility of social institutions to be dysfunctional and harmful. For example, the family is considered to be a harmonious institution, so social issues such as domestic violence are not taken into consideration (Chapman, 2004, p.25).

Neo-Marxism

In contrast to the consensus theory of functionalism, the conflict theory of Marxism argues that the cornerstones of social relations are the infrastructure and the economic system that determine how the goods are produces. Thereby, Marxism theory is a structural theory that implies different economic groups or classes, namely the capitalist class and the working class. The conflict between these two classes is based on inequality, as capitalists aim to derive the maximum labour from workers at lowest cost (Anyon, 2011, p.19). Neo-Marxists do not agree with the status quo approach and raise the questions of existing purposes and structures of public education. Neo-Marxism suggests that the ruling class of the society constantly exerts and reproduces its power with the help of social institutions, specifically with the help of public education. In classrooms children accept the authority of the teacher who has the power to determine the day of the pupils, determine the level of knowledge, impose norms and regulations in the classroom and allocate rewards and punishment through the grading system (Hammel, 2008, p.30). Thereby, according to Neo-Marxist theory education in capitalist societies promotes inequality rather than reduces it and the purpose of education is determined by the capitalist class (Livingstone, 2004, p.187).

The views of Neo-Marxism on education imply that the structure of education is directly related to the economy. However, critics of Neo-Marxist theory argue that the state can play a mediating role between the concepts. Furthermore, the theory is criticised for being over-deterministic, because it considers students to be passive receivers of ideology. Besides, Neo-Marxism pays attention to the curriculum that is imposed on students, while ignoring the content of the curriculum that is transmitted by educational institutions (Popkewitz, 2013, p.91). The Neo-Marxism views disregard the efforts of the working class and other disadvantaged classes to achieve their own educational objectives. The over-concentration on economic relations and the assumption that the capitalist ruling class is able to manipulate other classes in the society are other points of Neo-Marxism criticism (Dale and Hyslop-Margison, 2010, p.132). Nevertheless, in line with the theory of functionalism, Neo-Marxism disregards differences within groups in terms of gender and race. The differences are attributed only to the classes that are determined by economic relations within the society, thus underlying the purpose of education to support these economic relations (McCarthy, 2008, p.186).

Research on Education and Training

Empirical investigation of Schofer and Meyer (2005, p.898) tested the assumptions of the conflict and competition approaches to education along with the functionalist view. The study confirmed these views by indicating that higher education expanded faster in countries that were characterised by more advanced secondary education systems. Meanwhile, in contrast to the view that competing status groups generate education expansion, the study showed that higher education expanded slower in countries with ethnical and linguistic diversity. The research concluded that competition implied exclusion of specific groups. Furthermore, the authors showed the role of governments in enrolment expansion, as educational systems were under centralised control (Schofer and Meyer, 2005, p.898). At the same time, there is evidence of the ability of the Neo-Marxist framework to address the issue of increasing cultural diversity in the international higher education. The research by Jiang (2011, p.387) explored the case of Chinese students in New Zealand. The study showed that tolerance was selected to address the differences in general, but the concept was not able to embrace and encourage cultural diversity in education. The study concluded that on a national and institutional level specific policies could be developed to address the issue of internationalisation in higher education, while the policies could be underpinned by the theory of Neo-Marxism. Thus, the purposes and functions of education could be determined and directed by governments (Jiang, 2011, p.387).

According to the functionalist view education and training contribute to the employment within the society. Specifically, higher education is able to provide some skills that are required for an individual to find job, although sometimes flexible organisations require flexible employees. Nevertheless, this requirement leads to transformative learning and the need for more training for the employees (Harvey, 2000, p.3). By contrast, the research by Jackson and Jamieson (2009) explored the case of the UK in terms of tertiary and higher education and analysed the ability of the education sector to contribute to the needs of the economy through the enhancement of the skills of the population. The study found that education and specifically post-graduate education was not able to ensure employee development. The education approaches of the UK government offered students little opportunity to develop into new areas. Specifically, the issue was related to the ability to determine a priority what type of education would be most appropriate for the individual with respect to employment gains and opportunities. Thereby, the effects of education on the economy were doubtful as well. The conclusions contradict the functionalist view that the purpose of education is to satisfy the increasing requirements of the industrialised society. Instead, the research demonstrated the inability of education to cope with the development of economics and society (Jackson and Jamieson, 2009). The interests and activities of the state in system of education are sometimes used to criticise the Neo-Marxist view on education, as it is suggested that the state is able to mediate the relationships between education and the economy (Hill, 2006, p.191). Nevertheless, the research by O’Connor (2013, p.546) explored the tendency for government policy to promote education for entrepreneurship. Governments’ aim in this regard was to promote economic activity through controlling education. The research determined another function and purpose of education and training, although the economic benefit of entrepreneurship education was difficult to substantiate. The study demonstrated that entrepreneurship education was promoted by economic conceptions, but it was hardly possible to measure whether such an education was able to achieve specific economic results. Nevertheless, the research demonstrated that governments were interested in controlling the system of education in order to affect the economy. This assumption confirmed the Neo-Marxist view on the functions and purpose of education, indicating the close relationship between education, the society and economics (O’Connor, 2013, p.546).

Conclusion

Education contributes to personal development of an individual by upgrading her or his skills in specific areas. According to functionalist view, education is able to mitigate inequality by reducing the differences between the individuals, as the differences could be created by the background, family, and religion. By contrast, Neo-Marxist approach argues that education contributes to inequality by supporting the capitalist class and moderating the relationship between the bourgeoisie and the working class. The present research explored the functions of education from both perspectives and discussed the empirical findings in view of these theories. The investigation demonstrates that governments are interested in controlling the system of education in order to influence the economic development of the country. In this regard, the Neo-Marxist view on education is supported, although there is evidence of the ability of flexible training to contribute to employment, in line with functionalist view.

References

Anyon, J. (2011) Marx and Education. New York: Routledge.

Berg, I. (2002) “Economics of Education”, in D. Levnson, P. Cookson and A. Sadovnik (eds.) Education and Sociology. Oxon: Routledge.

Chandra, S. and Sharma, K. (2004) Sociology Of Education. New Delhi: Atlantic Publishers and Distributors.

Chapman, S. (2004) Sociology. Delaware: Letts and Lonsdale.

Dale, J. and Hyslop-Margison, E. (2010) Paulo Freire: Teaching for Freedom and Transformation. Dordrecht: Springer.

Feinberg, W. and Soltis, J. (2004) School and Society. 4thed. New York: Teachers College Press.

Hallinan, M. (2006) Handbook of the Sociology of Education. New York: Springer Science.

Hammel, K. (2008) Leadership Preparation as One Person’s Transformation: An Ontology. Ann Arbor: ProQuest.

Harvey, L. (2000) “New realities: The relationship between higher education and employment”, Tertiary Education and Management, 6 (1), pp. 3-17.

Hill, D. (2006) “Six Theses on Class, Global Capital and Resistance by Education and Other Cultural Workers”, in O. Moiso and J. Suoranta (eds.) Education and the Spirit of Time. Rotterdam: Sense Publishers.

Jackson, S. and Jamieson, A. (2009) “Higher education, mature students and employment goals: policies and practices in the UK”, Journal of Vocational Education and Training, 61 (4), pp. 399-411.

Jiang, X. (2011) “Why Interculturalisation?A neo-Marxist approach to accommodate cultural diversity in higher education”, Educational Philosophy and Theory, 43 (4), pp. 387-399.

Kirby, M., Kidd, W. and Koubel, F. (2000) Sociology in Perspective. Oxford: Heinemann Educational Publishers.

Livingstone, D.W. (2004) The Education-jobs Gap: Underemployment Or Economic Democracy. Aurora: Garamond Press.

Mannheim, K. and Stewart, W. (2001) An Introduction to the Sociology of Education. London: Routledge.

McCarthy, C. (2008) “Rethinking Liberal and Radical Perspectives on Racial Inequality in Schooling: Making the Case for Nonsynchrony”, in C. Grant and T. Chapman (eds.) History of Multicultural Education: Foundations and stratifications. Vol. 2. New York: Routledge.

Morrow, R. and Torres, C. (1995) Social Theory and Education: A Critique of Theories of Social and Cultural Reproduction. New York: State University of New York Press.

O’Connor, A. (2013) “A conceptual framework for entrepreneurship education policy: Meeting government and economic purposes”, Journal of Business Venturing, 28 (4), pp. 546-563.

Popkewitz, T. (2013) Critical Theories in Education: Changing Terrains of Knowledge and Politics. Oxon: Routledge.

Rather, A. (2007) Theory and Principles of Education. New Delhi: Discovery Publishing House.

Schofer, E. andMeyer, J. (2005) “The Worldwide Expansion of Higher Education in the Twentieth Century”, American Sociological Review, 70 (6), pp. 898-920.

 

Khalil Mohmand is Lecturer in Business studies and Economics at Stanmore College, London, UK.

 

View expressed in this article are of the author’s own and do not necessarily reflect Pajhwok’s editorial policy.

 

Visits: 104

The views expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect Pajhwok's editorial policy.

Author's brief introduction

author avatar

Khalil Mohmand is Lecturer in Business Studies & Economics at Stanmore College, London UK.

GET IN TOUCH

SUGGEST A STORY

Pajhwok is interested in your story suggestions. Please tell us your thoughts by clicking here.

PAJHWOK MOBILE APP

Download our mobile application to get the latest updates on your mobile phone. Read more