Ch a p t e r 2

Theoriesof Education
Sociological

INrnonucrroN
Theories exist to help people explain how and why particular phenomena occur
as they do. They are employed as tools that enableus to rnake senseof the world,
and are systematicallydeveloped from existing knowledge and tested against
empirical evidence.
Sociologicaltheories of education have arisen to explain everything from why
some people fail and others succeedto problems of educational finance and every-
day classroom interaction. It is sometirnes difficult to categorize and assessthe
importanceof sociologicaltheoriesof education.Becauseparticulargroups,includ-
ir g educ at ion a l a d m i n i s tra to rs , g o v e rn ments, educati onal parti ci pants, and
researchersin severalacademicdisciplines,conduct educational researchfor differ-
, ent reasons,theoriesof educationoften are either absentfrom researchor elseare
, r l " lnigf,ty diversifiedand scatteredin nature.As Pareliusand Parelius(1987:15) warn
'll \ rr
I about the proliferation of educationalresearchfindings that are not unified into any
I
theoretical perspectives, A glut of discretefindings, with no organi zing framework,
can be as uselessasthe untestedspeculationsof the "armchair" theorist.'Atthe same
time, it can be an imposing task to make senseof the sometimesbewilderingarray
of theoreticalalternativesin a field like the sociologyof education,which is com-
'3Ds'
monly characterizedas being in a'constant stateof flux' representedin the of
divergence,disagreement,, and difference (Levinson and Sadovnik, 2002:3).
. .\ 'l Building on the centralsociologicalquestionsdiscussedin Chapter 1, this chap-
u0tv- l.
) ex am lnesr e Pre s e n ta ttvtheories
e' of education.The discussionstartswith a con-
;t.r
'sideration
of eachof the three main theoreticalperspectives, identifiedas structural
functionalism, interpretative sociology, and critical analysis, as a framework to
,exploredebatesamong proponentsof theseapproachesas well as a foundation out
. .,.\ 1|lof which haveemergedvarious hybrid theoriesand critical alternatives. The discus-
it''" f sion of sociologicaltheoriesof educationin this chapterillustratessignificantissues
land models of analysisthat charactertzeeach approach,rather than being exhaus-
tive and comprehensivein nature, and culminatesby consideringguidelinesfor an
adequateunderstandingof educationalproblems.

SrnucruRAL FuNcrroNALrsM AND LrsEner TrlEony

Thr' earliestinfluential sociologicaltheoriesof educationemergedwithin structur-
al iunctionalistanalysis.In the late nineteenthand early tnentieth centuries,French
socioloqistEnrile Durkheim, one of the first writers to developan explicitly socio-
loqrc,llfrirrnovork,made the examinationof educationsvstenrsa centralpart of his
 S o c r o r o c r c , c . L T H E o R I F . so F E n u c e r r o N

ana\ys\s of society. The crucia\ prob\em that guided Durkheim's socio\ogica\

inquiry is one that lies at the heart of structural functionalism-'Why does the
individual, while becoming more autonomous, depend rnore upon society?'
(Durkheim, 1933: 37). Durkheim's concern, which remains highly significant
today, arose from the observation that it was necessaryto discover the basesof
cohesionor solidarity that keep societiesfrom disintegratingamid an increasein
individual rights, and self-interest.Durkheim stressededucation's
/individualism,
importance as an integrative and regulative mechanism that would bind people
i
I together and help them develop consciousnessof their responsibilitiesand rela-
tionships within the wider society.He emphasizedthat societies,like individuals,
have unique characteristicsthat set them apart from others. The purpose of for-
lmal education is to provide each individual with the knowledge and capabilities
Ithat are essential for meaningful participation in particular societal contexts.
Education, understood in this way:

is the influenceexercised on thosethat are ncltyet readyfor

by adult generations
sociallife. Its objectis to arouseand to developin the child a certainnumber of
physical, intellectual,
and moral stateswhich aredemandedof Ihim or her] by both
the politicalsocietyasa wholeand the specialmilieu for which [heor she]is specif-
icallydestined. (Durkheim.1956:7l)

For Durkheim, the task of sociology with respect to education and other social
facts is, therefore,to uncover and specifr the'normal' characteristicsfor any given
society in order to ensure closer integration between the individual and society
and among all members of that society.Durkheim's writings on education have
received iess attention than other aspects of his work among sociologists.
Nonetheless,recurrent themesin his work, such as a concern to preservesocialsol-
idarity, have gained recent prominence as social policy-makersturn to education-
al solutions to problems associatedwith social diversity and cohesion.
Durkheim's assumption-that a core set of social factors is generaland shared
widely within a society-is a defining feature of structural functionalist and liberal
analysis.The work of Thlcott Parsons,extendingmany of Durkheim's insightsto the
analysisof American social systems,representsthe functionalist view that central
social institutions like the education system play a key role in maintaining social
order. Parsons,like Durkheim, views the task of schoolsto be more complex than
simply to transmit knowledgeand valuesto students.Rather,such knowledgeand
valuesare to be internalizedby individuals as part of their personalities.The prop-
erly'schooled'person is one who knows intuitively and can act productively on the
expectations,rules, and behaviours that accompany and give shapeto social life.
Parsons (1959) conveysthe most central assumptionsand propositions of
structuralfunctionalistanalysisin his article'The SchoolClassas a SocialSystem:
Some of Its Functions in American Societyi As the article'stitle suggests,Parsons
portrays schoolsas socialsystemsthat reflect and servein the interestsof the wider
 Tnr Socror-ocy or EoucerroN rN CeNera

society.Within industrial democracies,schools exist to channel individuals from

the emotional, person-centreddemands of home and family life to the more for-
malized, competitive,and achievement-orientedworld of work and public life. In
the primary grades,for instance,school subjectsare not rigidly divided like they
are in high school.Rather,emphasisis on learning fundamental socialand intel-
lectual skills without comprehensivetesting, and pupils are taught by one teacher
(usually a woman, to provide continuity from the mother figure in the home envi-
ronment). In progressivelyhigher grades,however,there is greater emphasis on
competitiveness,merit-based performance, and instruction by severalteachers,
primarily men, akin to the structure and division of labour that prevail in the
workplace (Parsons,1959: 314-15). Schools,in these regards,have two primary
functions-allocation and socialization-that contribute to the maintenance of
)
the social system.First, schooling, through the mechanismsof grading, granting
credentials,and more informal selectionprocesses,sorts individuals to fill distinct
positions in the social hierarchy.Second,schooling contributes to individual per-
sonality formation by inculcating the dispositions necessaryfor successfulpartic-
ipation in general social life as well as those that are suited for the specific social
roles and experiencesthat accompanyeach person'sexpectedsocial position.
Structural functionalist analysis,as illustrated clearly in the work of both
Durkheim and Parsons,offers a particular perspectiveon the question of schools'
role in socialreproduction.Structuralfunctionalistsview socialreproduction,the
processby which social order and continuity are maintained from generation to
generation) as consensual and harmonious in nature. Much like in a natural
ecosystem,the normal state of society is portrayed as one in which each element
(including individuals and institutions) plays a specificpart that combines and is
interdependentwith others in such a way that the vitality of the whole system is
maintained. Becauseall members of an organization or societyhave a stakein the
system,there is an emphasison mutual respectand common goals.While tensions
and conflict may emerge,a successfulsocial organizationis seenas one that is able
to develop mechanismsto manage conflict and changeand reduce the possibility
that they may causedamageto the social or institutional system.
Some structural functionalist writers carry thesenotions further by highlight-

the socialexpectationsattachedto learning and educationaloutcomes,the hidden

curriculum refers to the more informal or less explicitly defined characteristics
that, nonetheless,are regular features of the schooling process. School-based
learning consistsof much more than simply the content of lessons,textbooks,and
rules that students are presentedwith. Important knowledge and skills are also
conveyedby daily participation, extendedover severalyears,within the socialcon-
text of schooling. Students learn values of conformity, competitiveness,deferred
gratification, obedience to authority, and adjustment to successand failure
through their experiencesin classroomsand other school settings (see,especially,
Dreeben,1968;fackson,1968).
 Socrorocrcnr TsnoRrES oF EoucerroN 23

Box2.1 A Functionalist
Perspective of Education
ontheSociology

Talcott Parsons(1959:277-S) has presentedone of the most influential struc-

tural functionalist accountsof education in his discussionof the socialization
and allocativefunctions of schooling:

Our main interest,then, is in a dual problem:first of how the school class

functionsto internalize in its pupilsboth the commitmentsand capacitiesfor
successful pedormance of theirfutureadultroles,and secondof how it functions
to allocatethesehumanresourceswithinthe role-structure of the adultsociety.
The primaryways in which thesetwo problemsare interrelated will provideour
main oointsof reference,
First,from the functionalpointof viewthe schoolclasscan be treatedas an
agencyof socialization. That is to say,it is an agencythroughwhich individual
personalitiesare trainedto be motivationally and technicallyadequateto the
performanceof adult roles.lt is not the sole such agency;the family,informal
'peer groups',churches,and sundryvoluntaryorganizations all play a paft, as
does actualon-the-jobtraining.But, in the periodextendingfrom entryintofirst
grade until entry into the labor force or marriage,the school class may be
regardedas the focalsocializingagency.
The socializationfunction may be summed up as the developmentin
individuals of the commitments and capacitieswhichareessential prerequisites of
theirfuturerole-performance. Commitments may be brokendown in turn intotwo
components:commitmentto the implementation of the broadvaluesof society,
and commitmentto the performance of a specifictype of rolewithinthe structure
of society.Thusa personin a relatively humbleoccupationmay be a 'solidcitizen'
in the senseof commitmentto honestwork in that occupation,withoutan intensive
and sophisticated concernwith the implementation of society'shigher-level values.
Or conversely, someoneelsemightobjectto the anchorageof the femininerole
in marriageand the familyon the groundsthat such anchoragekeepssociety's
totaltalentresourcesfrom beingdistributedequitablyto business,government,
and so on. Capacitiescan also be brokendown into two components,the first
beingcompetenceor the skillto performthe tasksinvolvedin the individual's roles,
and the second being 'role-responsibility' or the capacityto live up to other
people'sexpectationsof the interpersonal behaviorappropriateto these roles.
Thusa mechanicas wellas a doctorneedsto havenot onlythe basic'skillsof his
trade',but alsothe abilityto behaveresponsibly towardthosepeoplewith whom
he is broughtintocontactin his work.
Whileon the one hand, the school class may be regardedas a primary
agencyby whichthesedifferentcomponentsof commitmentsand capacitiesare
generated,on the other hand, it is, from the point of view of the society,an
 TnE Soclolocy op EoucnrroN rN CeNene

agencyof 'manpower'allocation.lt is wellknownthat in Americansocietythere

is a veryhigh,and probablyincreasing, correlationbetweenone'sstatuslevelin
the societyand one s levelof educationalattainment.Both socialstatus and
educationallevel are obviouslyrelatedto the occupationalstatus which is
attained.Now, as a result of the generalprocess of both educationaland
occupational upgrading, completionof highschoolis increasingly
comingto be
the norm for minimumsatisfactoryeducationalattainment,and the most
significantlinefor futureoccupationalstatus has come to be drawn between
membersof an age-cohortwho do and do not go to college.
Source: Reprinted by permission of Harvard Educational Review.

It is useful to consider here a central assumption of structural functionalist

analysis,the presupposition that social stratification and inequality are necessary
structural featuresof advancedsocieties.The reproduction of society involves an
assumed hierarchy of positions that must be filled with suitably qualified and
motivated people.This requirement givesrise to the specifiedfunctions of school-
ing, including the tasksof sorting and socializingindividuals and contributing to
common values.As long as the social system appearsto be operating smoothly,
with no threats to the system'sbreakdown, few questions are raised about the
kinds of values and inequalitiesbeing fosteredor about which groups, if any, are
their main beneficiaries.
The assumptionsabout consensusand stratification in structural functionalist
{ i
theory focus attention on the identification of mechanismsthat will assurethat
the social reproduction process operates effectively and efficiently. In the late
1950s and 1960s,theoreticalconsiderationof the link between schooling and
socio-economicneedswas enhancedby policy concernsto produce a scientifical-
ly and technically sophisticatedworkforce. Rapid expansionof industrial produc-
tion and mass-marketedgoods and serviceswere stimulated by a combination of
factors, including military production in World War II and the subsequentCold
War, the creation of new household consumer products, and relativelyhigh wages
and stablelabour markets.In North America, the'spacerace'betweenthe Soviet
Union and the United Statesservedas a symbolic rallying point around which new
workforce requirements,driven by scienceand technologicalknowledge,were to
be implemented. At the same time, the promise of social and economic security
fostered growing emphasis on the domestic sphere and the cultivation of closer
ties between schoolsand family life. Schoolsfigured prominently in these transi-
tions, as enrolments were boosted by rising birth rates associatedwith the post-
war'baby boom' and new educational activities that accompanied expectations
about domestic life and leisure-time activities.Educational expansionwas further
fuelled by demands for a more highly educated labour force and a scientifically
grounded curriculum to train experts and service workers required by the new
 S o c l o r o c r c e r T n r o R r E so F E o u c e r r o N

economy.Subsequently,socialscientistsinterestedin the prospectseducation held

for wider social and individual advancementextended functionalist orientations
through a number of interrelatedstrandsof structural and liberal analysis,includ-
) ing technologicalfunctionalism and human capital theory, which view education
as an investment to stimulate productiviTy ffiEno-ic growth.
One variant, statusattainment research,emergedas a meansto provide empir-
ical evidencethat would test the strength of linkages among background charac-
teristics (like gender, race, and socio-economic status), formal education, and
other life chances.The researchfindings, typically drawn from large-scalequanti-
1
Itative data, consistentlydemonstratethe pervasivenature of social inequality, but
lare surrounded by conflicting interpretations.Blau and Duncan ( I 967), for exam-
lple, suggestthat their data offer support for the Parsonian thesis that education
has come to replacefamily background as the primary determinant of occupational
placement in the United States.However, other high-profile empirical analyses,
notably the Coleman Report (Coleman et al., 1,966)and the work of Jenckset al.
(1972) in the United Statesand Floud, HalseS and Martin (1956) in the UK,
attribute the origins of social inequality more to the home and other non-school
sites'thanto schooling.Coleman (1968) emphasizes,as well, that it is crucial to
distinguish between equality of results and equality of opportunity. Schoolscan-
not compensatefor social disparitieson their own, but they can make an impact
by providing enriched learning conditions that give all students the chance to
compete for accessto desired social positions. With respect to Canadian data,
Porter (1965) provides a functionalist analysis of education's contribution to
socialmobility, but adds the important proviso that domination by elites,selected
through social factors such as class,ethnicity, and religious affiliation, placeslim-
its on the opportunity structure.
It is noteworthy that the studiescited above,conducted primarily between the
mid-1950s and the late 1960s,reflect an optimistic faith in education'sability to
promote social progress and democratic opportunities. While the optimism is
sometimestempered with warnings that social reforms may be required to fulfill
the promise of schooling,very little in these studies challengesthe prevailing lib-
eral and functionalist assumptions that inequality is socially necessary.What
becomescrucially important is that social stratification must be seento be based
on open and fair selectionmechanisms.The major point of debate concerns the
degree to which schools could or could not contribute to the equalization of
opportunities. It is perhaps not surprising, therefore, that status attainment
research,likehuman capital theory, frequently has been cited to justify socialpoli-
cies and reforms that affect practicesboth within and outside of education sys-
tems. Both the Coleman Report in the United Statesand the Plowden Report
(Central Advisory Council for Education, 1967) in England, for instance,were
commissionedby the respectivegovernmentsas tools to addressissuesof poverty
and provide initiativesto stimulate the socialand economic advancementof disad-
vantagedgroups.They drew from structural functionalism the relativelyoptimistic
 26 THE SocroLocy oF EoucnrtoN tN CnNeon

and unquestioningassumptionabout the role of educationin the serviceof indi-

vidual, social,and economicdevelopment,althoughthis view was sometimestem-
pered by research findings and philosophical orientations that gave rise to
skepticismabout how much differenceschooling,at least in its present forms,
could mtrketo social change.
Another influential strand of liberal analysis,educationalprogressivism,
offers a
critique of existingsocialarrangements,but retainsfaith in the ability of schoolsto
improve those conditions. Originating within the nineteenth-century progressive
movement that promoted a humanistic vision of socialchangeguided by the state,
educationalprogressivismcontributed most strongly to a restructuring of educa-
tional thought and practice in the early part of the twentieth century. Sociologist
Jane Addams (1910) promoted social improvement through co-operation and
democratic social ethics, integrating education, social theory, and community-
basedpractice in order to encouragethe collectiverealizationof socialbenefitsfor
all membersof society.Interestin this work hasbeen revitalizedthrough recentini-
tiatives to promote lifelong learning, community-school collaboration, and
stronger integration of formal education with other socialexperiences.
John Dewey,probably the best-known advocateof educational progressivism,
was influenced by Marx as well as by liberal theory, and also was an associateof
Addams,aswell asG.H. Mead and other interpretativesociologistsat the University
) of Chicago. Like Marx, Dewey (1966) was critical of a growing uniformity of life
within industrial capitalism and advocatedthe creation of more meaningful con-
nections between school and practical experience.However, reflecting his liberal
')
orientations, Dewey promoted schooling as a mechanism that would ameliorate
such pressingsocialproblems as poverty,crime, ethnic antagonism,and socialdis-
location causedby rapid urbanization,industrialization,and economic change.
) Dewey sought to replacethe adherenceto routine and orientation to future rewards
in traditional education with child-centred educational practices.He contended
that schoolsshould act autonomously from the industrial systemand its inherent
dangersin order to foster individual growth and social responsibility.
, Dewey'/ progressive,humanistic philosophy)seeminglywas at odds with some
of the majoLreducationalreforms derived from industry early in the twentieth cen-
I'
tury. Influential administrative reformers like Ellwood Cubberly, J.F,Bobbitt, and
R.W. Tyler advancedthe implementation of rational models of educational man-
agementand curriculum constructionbasedon the applicationof scientificprin-
ciples to school organization and practice.These approaches,in stark contrast to
the liberal emphasison human development,portrayed education as an endeav-
our that should be plannedand operatedas an efficientbusinessenterprise.There
was, however,an affinity between the scientific managementof schooling and the
progressivevision of a better societyproduced through the intervention of state
authorities and scientific expertise.The convergenceof these orientations con-
tributed to growing emphasisin the 1920sand 1930son such innovationsas psy-
chological testing of student intelligenceand aptitudes,systematiccurriculum
 S o c r o r o c r c e r T n n o R r E so F E o u c e r r o N 27

planning, increaseddemarcation of school subjectsand grade levels,especiallyat

the high school level,bureaucraticschool administrative structures,and streaming
of pupils by programs and ability.
Progressivismre-emerged as an influential force in educational practice and
theory in the 1960sand 1970s.Educationalreforms such as'open'classrooms, cur-
ricula and teachingstylesthat emphasizedpupil choiceand participation, sensitiv-
ity to learners' backgrounds and values, and awarenessof the relevance of
schoolingto everydaylife signified a supposedshift from traditional to progressive
educational philosophies in an era characterizedby widespread challengesto
authority and prevailing social structures. Some critics, labelled by Carnoy and f '
Levin (1985: 16-17) as critical progressives, condemnedthe schoolsfor perpetu-
ating rather than eradicatingthe problems of mass society,'arguingthat far from
being an instrument of social progress,education was actually deadening-much
more oriented to producing failure than to developingcreative,critical minds that
could be the basisfor a more humanistic, democratic society.'
The titles of significant studies from this period-How Children Fail (Holt,
1964), Death at an Early Age: The Destruction of the Hearts and Minds of I,{egro
Children in the BostonPublicSchools(Kozol, 1967),and De-SchoolingSociety(Illich,
1970)-convey the messagethat schools foster, at best, boredom and restricted
opportunities for successor, worse,dehumanization and habituation into destruc-
tive routines.Unlike the more optimistic assessment of the possibilitiesthat school-
ing containsfor a democraticsociety,asadvancedby educationalprogressivism,the
critical progressivestancecontendsthat schoolsare not organized and equipped to
fulfill their promise and overcomethe damagingaspectsof the hidden curriculum.
Thesearguments have influenced many proponents of home schooling and other
recent movementsto adopt alternativeforms of educationaldelivery.Nonetheless,
in common with other liberal approaches,these orientations tend to give less
prominence to analysisof the root causesof educationalproblems than to a pre-
occupation with individual basesof success,failure, and opportunities.
The theories that have been examined in this section have pointed to the real
and potential contributions made by formal education to social and economic
development.With a few exceptions,they portray education as a progressiveforce
that can expand opportunities for individuals as well as for whole societies.The
key to a successfuleducation systemis the establishmentof mechanismsthat will
ensurea proper'fit'between individuals'socialbackground,on the one hand, and
the demands of the social system,on the other.
--\ Structural functionalism is rarely employed as an explicit theoretical orientation
in current educationalresearch,fr part becauseof some of the problems outlined
below, aswell as the impact that newer theoretical frameworks havehad on the field.
However,structural functionalism is highly significant for its formative impact on
the development of the sociology of education. It has drawn attention to crucial
questionsabout the relationshipbetweeneducation and other spheresof sociallife
as well as to the role that persistentsocial inequalitiesplay in advancedsocieties.
 TuE Socrot-ocy oF Eoucarrox rN Cerqare

Liberal analysesof education,by contrast,have remained popular among both aca-

demic researchersand policy-makersdue to their generallyoptimistic assessment
about prospects fbr expanding individual opportunity and social productivity.
Severalwriters have suggested,as well, that Durkheim's educationalanalysiswar-
rants rehabilitationassocietieslook for solutionsto challengesposedby socialdiver-
sity, rnoral uncertainty,changing relationsbetweenindividualism and community,
and issuesof citizenshipin a global context (Walford and Pickering, 1998).
Despite their influence, there are severalimportant limitatigns to structural
functionalistand liberal theoriesof education.In particular,the theoreticalmodel
tends to offer a description of an ideal state of affairs rather than an explanation
of social reality.As will be documented later,much substantialevidenceruns con-
trary to, or at least makes questionable,the assumption of a meritocratic social
structure in which educational achievementand individual ef'fort, and not one's
social origins, account for social successor failure. Even when there is a clear rela-
tionship between educational achievement and social status or occupational
attainment, it is necessaryto consider whether schooling reinforcesor eradicates
social inequalitiesalreadyin existence.The impact of such factors as wealth, con-
trol and restructuring of jobs, and intrinsic rewards such as personal satisfaction
with particular jobs or life situationsis often not consideredin the measuringof
social and educational inequality. While inequality is a complex, changing phe-
nomenon, it is also reproducedin both overt and subtle ways.Opportunities for
social advancementmay be restrictedeven if we assumethat there is an open, fair,
and meritorious processby which individuals are allocatedto social positions.
Functionalist and liberal analysestend to overestimatethe extent to which social
reforms can contribute to socialchange,in the processignoring or minimizing the
significanceof more deeply embedded power relations associatedwith class,gen-
der, race,and relatedfactors.By the late 1960s,the contradiction betweenprom-
ised socio-economic opportunities and people's life experiencesresulted in a
rethinking of liberal assumptionsamong many educationalparticipantsand ana-
lysts. Growing consciousnessof the subordination of women and racial minori-
ties, the emergenceof the student protest movement, and the persistenceof
poverty produced a fertile environment in which alternative perspectivesin aca-
demic researchcould flourish.

h. ur s npRE T A T rv E AN e ry s rs o F S c H o o LrN G
I Interpretative analysishas tended to focus on two featuresof schooling: ( 1) the
I meaning and nature of school practicesfor educationalparticipants;and (2) the
I importance of language, knowledge, curricula, and other symbolic aspects of
schooling.Learningand interactionwith othersare viewedas socialprocesses, not
simply as aspectsof social positions and structures as they are portrayed within
structural functionalistanalysis.Consistentwith a broad socialconstructivistori-
entation, interpretativesociologistsargue that societyand socialoutcomes are not
tlxed; rather, they are created,recreated,and modified continuously by human
 Socrorocrclr THnoRrEs oF ErucnrroN

activity. Schooling, in this view, is a site of perpetual adjustment as participants

attempt to decipher and share meanings with one another and, in the process,
shapetheir personalitiesand lives.As expressedby Karl Mannheim (1,936 156):

Modern educationfrom its inceptionis a living struggle,a replica,on a smallscale

of the conflictingpurposesand tendencieswhich rage in societyat large.
Accordingly,
the educated [personis] . . .determinedin a varietyof ways.

In common with other approachesexamined in this book, there are diverseroots

and strands to the interpretativeanalysisof schooling.
Max Weber, whose work is at least as influential as that of his contemporary,
Emile Durkheim, stressedthe importance of education and educational creden-
tials to the rationalization of society.Rationalization,for Weber, is a processthat
involves science,technical knowledge, and other elements related to systematic
planning for the achievementof predetermined objectives.Rationality is perhaps
most strongly apparent in bureaucratic organizations governed,at least in a for-
mal sense,by written rules and procedures,a hierarchy of authority, impartial
treatment of clients,and hiring and careeradvancementof officials basedon for-
mal credentials.In this context, formal education has special significance as a
bureaucratic site in which training is systematicallyorganizedto provide individ-
uals with necessarysocial attributes and legitimate credentials.While this analysis
parallels that of functionalism in important respects,Weber is especiallycon-
cerned with the ways in which credentialsare used by officials and other interest
groups to advance their own positions (see,e.g., Gerth and Mills, 1946: 240-4, k
4l6ff .). Despite the overwhelming tendency towards control and predictability in
modern life, in other words, Weber maintains that the processesby which these
outcomesare sought or resistedare of utmost importance.Weber'swork has given
rise to later studiesin both critical analysisand interpretative sociology.
One such approach, known as neo-Weberian analysis,employs Max Weber's
theories of bureaucracyand power to analyzecontemporary schooling.C. Wright
Mills (1951, 1956),who adopts elementsof both Marxian and Weberiananalysis
in his scathing social critique, arguesthat the processof rationalization has con-
tributed to the rise of a mass society in which our lives are governed by a power
elite of business,political, and military leaders.Formal education, particularly
within private schoois and colleges,is an important mechanism through which
accessto elite positions can be controlled and elite solidarity fostered.Schooling
and training practicesfacilitaterational processesof planning and managementso
as to produce a cadre of technical experts.
Neo-Weberian analysisof power relations is often linked with conflict theories
as well as with interpretative orientations. These connections are emphasizedin
the critique of the role of education in advanced industrial society offered by
Randall Collins (1971),who disputesliberal functionalist argumentsthat increased
technical requirements for skilled labour are responsiblefor the expansion of the
 TUE Socror,ocy op EoucerroN rN CnNere

public educationsystem.Collins arguesthat the link betweenschoolingand jobs

is often marginal, and, in fact, that the skill requirements for many jobs have not
increased.Rather,the increasein the levelsof formal education required for entry

Box2,2 An Interpretative
Perspective
ontheSociology
of Education
Interpretative analysis emphasizes the meanings and interactions within
schools and other social settings, highlighting their implications for social
actors themselves.Ogle and Eckman (2002: 169-70,184-5), analyzingmedia
coverageof the tragic circumstancessurrounding the shooting deaths of 15
persons in Columbine High School (cus) in Colorado in 1999,illustrate the
powerful role that sociallyconstructed images-in this casefocusing on dress
codes-can piay in our orientations to youth, violence,and identity:

Even in articlespublishedthe day of the shootings,media writersinvoked

appearanceas a potentialexplanationfor this act of youth violence.Through
this coverage,certaintypes of appearanceswere constructedas part of the
Columbineproblem.Theseappearances werelinkedto threedifferentcrs social
groups-the TrenchCoat Mafia,the Goths,and the jocks-and consequently
were imbuedwith meaningsreflectiveof the valuesand lifestylespurportedly
embraced by members of these groups. The identificationof certain
appearancesas part of the Columbineproblem-and thus, as in need of
regulation-can be traced to numerousnewspaperarticlesthat included
descriptionsof the gunmens appearances.. , .
For example,the argumentthat controlof the school environmentcan be
achievedby controlofstudentappearancesechoesthe premisethat by regulating
the dress of students, school officialscan control the symbolic messages
communicatedby students'appearancesand therebydirect their behaviors,
interpersonal interactions,
and thus the academicclimate.A specificexampleof
such logiccan be found in the claimthat by prohibitingdresssymbolsused to
expressgroupaffiliation,and therebydisallowingthe use of dresscues to identify
anotheras a memberof a certainpeer group,schoolscould effectively reduce
negativefeedbackexchanged(e,9,,taunting)and hostileinteractions amongrival
studentgroupssuch as the TrenchCoat Mafiaand the jocks.Similarly, banning
appearances(e.9.,blacktrenchcoats)that could communicatea messageof
for violenceso as to preventalterca-
with the gunmenor an inclination
affiliation
tions amongindividuals who might mistakenlydefinethe situation(i.e.,assume
anotheris violentbasedon hisor her dressand behavior,accordingly)also reflects
the notionthat humansuseappearance symbolsto assignidentities,to formulate
behavioral and to guidetheirinterpersonal
expectations, interactions,
Source: PaffOgle, Jennifer, and Molly Eckman,'Dress-Related Responsesto the Columbine Shootings: Other-
Imposed and Self-Designed', Family and Consumer SciencesResearchlournal. a 2002 American Association
of Family and Consumer Sciences.Reprinted by permission of SAGE publications.
 S o c r o r o c r c e r T n r o R r E so F E o u c e r r o n

into particular occupations is a consequenceof competition among status

groups. The major purpose of schooling, therefore, is to provide credentialsand
offer legitimacy to particular status cultures within the social and occupational
structures.Murphy (1994), employing international and Canadian examples,
extendsCollins's analysisby showing that Weber'stheory enablesus to assesshow
credentialsare used in different ways by both dominant and subordinate groups
in various struggles over status and cultural capital (cultural resources).
Teachers'associations,for instance,may rely on the credentialsof their members
as a way of distinguishing teachersfrom laypersonswanting to become involved
in educational matters, but they may also seeksupport or allianceswith political
parties and other organized groups to protect their own interests against more
powerful forces.
The interpretative analysisof schooling and other social institutions rose to
prominence through a branch of investigationthat came to be called the Chicago
School of sociology.This approach, which continues to have a strong influence
within the discipline,was most activein the 1920sthrough the work of sociologists
at the University of Chicago,who used their dynamic city, with its changing mix of
industry, urban development,and social composition, as a living laboratory. The
Chicago School stressedthe interdependentnature of the personality,or self,and
'the
social interaction. W.I. Thomas'snotion of definition of the situationl which
highlights the powerful role that perceptionsand sharedmeaningsplay in guiding
'the
social action, and C.H. Cooley'sconcept of looking-glassself',which alerts us
to the processby which our behaviour and identity are shapedby our awareness
of the reactions of others, illustrate the interpretative aspectsof this approach.
George Herbert Mead's analysisof the d1'namic,interactive nature of personality
formation contributed to the development of symbolic interactionism in sociol-
ogy and social psychology.For Mead, as recognizedby later developmental pry-
chologists, education is part of an ongoing processof human development in
which the individual learns and sharessocial meaningswith other people (Ritzer,
2008: 429-30).
One of the earliest,most complete analysesof schooling within the Chicago
School tradition is Willard Waller's The Sociologyof Teaching,originally published
in 1932.Waller (1965: 6) examinesthe school as a'social organism'constituted
through'a unity of interacting personalitieslHis analysismoves directly into the
classroom and other school sites,providing rich examplesof the complex social
relations that link pupils, teachers,administrators,parents,and other educational
participants within a distinct school culture. School and social structures are
viewed as maps to guide these interactions,but Waller emphasizesthat schooling
remains a fluid processmarked by changing,sometimesconflicting, definitions of
the situation. Severalwriters, informed by Hochschild's (1983) influential analysis
of emotional labour, have extendedthis analysisto explore how gender relations
and caring and emotional dimensions intersectin classroomsand other core sites
of human interaction (Bellas,1999).
12 TuE Soclolocy or EoucerroN rN CeN.c.oe

The interpretative tradition of classroom researchwas extended by Becker

(1952, 1953),who employed detailed interviews to explore how teachersdefine
and act on their rolesand circumstances. Becker'sanalysispoints to the processby
which teachers'expectationscontribute to the social construction of different cat-
egories of students, thereby affecting students' educational experiences and
chancesof school success. A substantialbody of later researchelaborateshow par-
ticular definitions of the situation held by educators result in self-fulfilling
prophecies. Teacherscreateand apply particular labelsto children and their par-
ents (as well as to other individuals, and vice versa),based on common-sense
assumptions,background information, and observationsfrom encounters.This
labelling influencessubsequenteducationaland socialcareerpaths.Rosenthaland
|acobson( 1968),in a frequentlycited study of children in a San Franciscoelemen-
tary school, demonstrate that teachers'presuppositionsabout pupils' learning
potentials,even if false,tended to have more impact on student performance than
did actual ability. Studiesby Cicourel and Kitsuse (1963) and Rist (1970) in the
United States,Hargreaves(1967) and Lacey (1970) in the United Kingdom, and
Stebbins(I975) in Canada,among many others,support the finding that self-ful-
filling prophecies operate as powerful influences on educational outcomes, but
this researchemphasizesmuch more fully than do Rosenthal and facobson the
complex interactions that take placewithin schools.
Many researchfindings within the interpretative tradition ultimately support
functionalist and critical analysesof social reproduction that show social out-
comes of schooling as highly predictablein nature. However,interpretativeanaly-
'black
sis emphasizesthat schooling cannot properly be viewed as a box' that
produces preselectedresults;instead,the most compelling interest lies with what
happensinside the school (Karabeland Halsey,1977 60). Other classroomstud-
ies,including Canadianresearchby Martin (I976) and Stebbins(1971,I975),por-
tray schooling as a site within which complex processesof negotiation and
decision-makingare undertakenby all participants.Albas and Albas (1993), for
instance,through observationof students'behaviourin examinationsin a western
Canadian university,demonstratethat studentsemploy a wide range of actions to
avoid being labelledas cheaters.Interpretativeanalysis,by probing into the some-
times devious ways that people engagewith one another and their social sur-
roundings, often conveysa strong senseof cynicism, expressedclearly in a chapter
in which Howard Becker(1996) reflectsupon many of his earlierinfluential stud-
ies,entitled'SchoolingIs a Lousy Placeto Learn Anything Inl
A conscious effort to question both school practices and the structure of
knowledge and curricula emerged within what came to be known in the early
1970sas the'new' sociologyof education.Critical of previous conventional socio-
logicaland educationalanalysisthat took for grantedwhat happensin schools,the
new sociologyof education sought explicitly to exposethe power relationsembed-
ded rvithin educationalpractices(Gorbutt,I972;Young, 1971).While this approach
drerv inspiration from emergent critical sociological analyses,its orientation to
 S o c l o r o c r c , c . r T H n o R T E So F E o u c l r r o N 33

researchproblems and methodologies was primarily interpretative.However, as

Karabeland Halsey(1977:47-8) observe,the new sociologyof educationwas pre-
dominantly a British phenomenon that paid little heed to previous, mostly North
American, classroomresearch,such as the studiesreferred to above.
The strength of the new sociology of education is its ability not only to bring
the schooling processto the centre of educational research,but also to challenge
many of the prevailing assumptionsabout the content of schooling. Knowledge,
and how it is presentedin the curriculum and deliveredin the classroom,is not an
absolutecategory.Rather,it is sociallyconstructed,given meaning and importance
through the social contexts in which it appears. Consequently, much of the
researchin the new sociology of education, like other forms of interpretative
analysis,is devoted to providing detailed descriptionsand outlines of the signifi-
canceof everydayoccurrences,such as patterns of joking and teasingin the class-
room or the hidden meanings contained within school textbooks.Whereasother
forms of analysistend to overlook or trivialize day-to-dayactivities,interpretative
sociology brings theseto the forefront as crucial components of social life.
While offering detailed insight into such crucial featuresof schooling as class-
\Llt room processes,interpersonal interactions, and the curriculum, interpretative
hr' sociology is often limited by its failure to link what happens in schoolswith the
world beyond schooling.Attention to the intricacies of everydayprocessestends
\rt to leave unanswered historical questions about change and how things got that
r i way in the first place.Moreover,there is a tendencyto ignore the impact of broad-
er socialstructures,opportunities,and decision-makingprocesses on educational
practices and outcomes. Negotiation between teachersand pupils for grades or
teachers' contributions to students' self-esteemmay influence students' career
choices,for instance,but thesechoicescannot be understood without referenceto
such factors as labour markets, families, and other socio-economicdeterminants.
Ultimately, like much structural functionalist analysis,interpretative sociology
makes its strongestcontribution in the description of social life but falls short in
its explan atory powers.

Cnrrrcer ANaLYSTs
The various strands in the critical analysisof schooling are unified by their con-
cern to find the underlying causesof educationalinequalitiesand change.Critical
analysis,like the other approachesto the sociology of education,has a long histo-
ry, but in North America, at least,it has really only achieveda position of some
prominence since the mid-1970s. Critical analysisstressesthat the education sys-
tem has largely failed in its promise to promote a more egalitarian society.
Moreover,this failure is not an accidentalby-product that can be correctedby sim-
ple reforms. Instead,schooling,in content and process,contributesto the subordi-
nation of substantialsegmentsof the population. The meritocratic and democratic
visions promoted by liberal and functionalist analysisare criticized as ideologies
that serve the interestsof dominant social groups. Three distinct orientatiorrsto
34 TnE Socrolocy op Eouc,c.TroNrN CeNeoe

r7
critical analysisof schooling-political economy influenced by Marxism, femi-
nism, and crltical pedagogy-are discussedbelow, with referenceto their unique
emphasesas well as to recent integrative approachesinformed by insights derived
from diversecritical and traditional perspectives.
Marxist educationaltheory shareswith neo-Weberian analysisthe assessment
that education systemswithin capitalist societiesare unable to fulfill their demo-
cratic potential becauseof the profound influence of dominant social forces.
Marxism, however,attributes the root causesof social inequality to structures of
classand economicproduction rather than to competition betweenstatusgroups.
While Karl Marx wrote very little on formal education,his theories and his
method for analyzing capitalist society offer a foundation for critical analysis,
known as historicalmaterialism,that is absentin other approaches.Marx's analy-
sis begins with the premise that all societiesemerge around the ways in which
people meet their basicsurvival needs.As human beingswe developsocially,dis-
tinct from other species,by virtue of our ability to labour. Labour, for Marx,
refers in a broad senseto consciousactivity devoted to the fulfillment of specific
human needs.Marx's social critique emphasizeshow our labour comes to be
alienated through processesby which others gain control over our labouring
activity and the products that we generatethrough it. Alienation is most extreme
in capitalist society,which is distinguished from other types of societiesand
modes of production by the waysthat capitalistsare able to control and organize
work to maximize profit.
Although most of Marx's analysisfocuseson the structural mechanisms that
drive the capitalist systemand produce social classantagonisms,Marx also com-
ments on the contradictory nature of schooling. Like other institutions within
capitalism,the education system constrainshuman potential that is otherwise
necessaryfor socialprogress.Schooling,when it is integratedwith work and other
crucial social activities,provides opportunities through which people can develop
both critical consciousnessand meaningful skills in such areas as literacy and
vocational practice. Organized to serve capitalist priorities of profit and labour
market discipline,however,schoolsfall far short of their potential, becoming more
like'sausagefactories'thanplacesfor human fulfillment. Schooling,under capital-
ism, is a vehicle for the production of a compliant workforce, p,roviding just
enough knowledgeto ensurea supply of workers ready for monotonous jobs while
advancing ideologiesthat servecapitalist interests(see,e.g.,Marx, 1977: 613-15;
Wotherspoon,1984:211). Despitethe deadeningeffectsof work and other social
practices within capitalism, however, Marx's theory emphasizespossibilities for
the revolutionary transformation of society. Public schooling, Marx contends,
would remain an essentialpart of communist society,although, by linking work
and education, its aim would be to foster personal and social development rather
than to servethe bourgeoisorder (Marx and Engels,1965:55, 60).
Marx's work, by virtue of its political orientation, has had a major impact on
educational practice. Literacy campaigns and revolutionary movements, inspired
 S o c l o r o c r c , c . r T H E o R T E So F E o u c e r r o N 35

at least in part by Marx and incorporating interpretations of his work adapted to

fit particular circumstances,have contributed to various kinds of educational
reform in many parts of the world. The student protest movement that emerged
in Western Europe and North America in the late 1960salso created a receptive
atmospherefor Marxist analysisin the socialsciences. Schoolingbeganto be por-
trayed as an'ideological stateapparatus'(Althusser,lg7l) or a form of cultural
imperialism (Carnoy, 1974) that contributes ideologically and materially to the
perpetuation of fundamentally unequal classrelations.
Insights offered by Harry Braverman 097a) exemplify the emergent Marxist
critique of work and other sociai"conditionsunder advancedcapitalist society.In
common with neo-Weberiananalysisadvancedby writers like Collins, Braverman
challengesthe popular liberal assessmentthat technological change has created
enhancedskill requirements and more meaningful white-collar work opportuni-
ties. However,Braverman (whoseanalysiswill be elaboratedin more detail in sub-
sequent chapters) contends that capitalist control over work involves managerial
strategiesthat produce increasingdegradation and deskilling within virtually all
occupations.Education, despiteits apparent contribution to individual and social
development,servesprimarily to co-ordinate and preparestudentsfor adjustment
to the routines of a world dominated by monopoly capital.
Probably the most influential neo-Marxist study of schooling to appear in the
wake of the 1960schallengesto political orthodoxy has been SchoolinginCapitalist
America by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis, published in 1976. Bowles and
Gintis make explicit the connectionsbetween the capitalist economy and school-
ing only noted in passingby Braverman,beginning with a critique of the failure of
liberal educationalreform to deliver on its promise of a more egalitarianand dem-
ocratic society.They contest,as well, conservativearguments that attribute educa-
tionai inequality to inherent differencesin intelligence and ability. Bowles and
Gintis argue,rather,that educationalreform can do little in itself to alleviatesocial
inequality insofar as inequality is rooted in the classstructure of capitalistsociety.
They identify a correspondence principle that operates between educational
reform and economic change.They argue that capitalism,in common with total-
itarian political systems,restricts democratic participation in order to maintain
material and ideological conditions to generateprofit and ensure a productive
labour force.
According to Bowles and Gintis, formal education in the United Stateshas
undergone three major historical changesthat correspond to changesin the capi-
talist economy.Initially, the rise of mass public schooling accompaniedthe need
in the mid- to late nineteenth century for a disciplined wage labour force. During
the second transition, between 1890 and 1930, progressiveeducational reforms
convergedwith the growing concentration of corporate capital and a diversified
workforce to produce a bureaucratic education systembased on standardization,
testing,and systematiccontrol. The third phaseinvolved correspondencebetween
the rapid expansion of post-secondaryeducation and the post-World War II
36 THs Socrolocy or EoucLrroN rN C,rx.lol

growth of professionaland white-collar occupationsneededto co-ordinate labour

and capital under intensified control by stateand corporate agencies.Educational
changefrequently is marked by strugglebecause,as Bowlesand Gintis (1976:235)
argue,'Conflicts in the educationalsphereoften reflect muted or open conflicts in
the economic sphere.'However,formal education servesprimarily to facilitate the
transformation of capitalistdevelopmentin such a way asto maintain socialorder.
Bowles and Gintis's analysishas advancedthe understanding of educational
structures and practicesby demonstrating that schooling, at least indirectly, is a
central part of the logic that drives capitalistdevelopmentand reproducessystem-
atic social inequalities.Their work also provides a historical account, lacking in
most previous studies, of forces that have contributed to the formation and
growth of contemporary educational institutions.
Despite the acuity of their critique of both traditional educationaltheoriesand
schoolingprocessesin capitalistsocieties,the insights offeredby Bowlesand Gintis
have sufficiently strong parallels with structural functionalist analysisthat some
'critical
writers (e.9., Carnoy and Levin, 1985: 2l-2) consider their work to be
functionalist' in nature. Among both traditional and critical analyses,in other
words, there is generalagreementthat schoolscontribute to social,ideological,and
labour force reproduction. Yet, there is considerabledebate over what kinds of
reproduction occur, how fair the system is, and who benefits from it. On either
side of the debate,there is a tendencyto understatethe complexitiescharacteristic
of educational realities.
Livingstone (1994: 65-7) summarizes three major problems with the corre-
spon&ffifrinciple advancedby Bowlesand Gintis: (1) a failure to recognizethat
different forms of knowledge, and not exclusivelycapitalist knowledge, exist and
are produced within educational settings;(2) the accumulation of historical evi-
dence suggestingthat the correspondencebetween schoolsand economic change
is, at best, incomplete and not necessarilydetermined by capitalist production
relations; and (3) a failure to develop a complete explanation of education that
goesbeyond relativelysimple statementsabout its functions. Bowlesand Gintis, in
responseto criticisms of their work, have commented that more attention needs
to be paid to the contradictions that characrerizeeducation and other social rela-
tions in advancedcapitalism (see,€.g., Gintis and Bowles, 198Q).Their work,
despiteits limitations, has remained a significant referencepoint for critical analy-
sis of schoolingbecauseof the crucial questionsit raisesabout how education con-
tributes to social reproduction.
Within much subsequenteducationalanalysisinformed by Marxism, there has
been a tendency either to take for granted the existenceof a correspondenceprin-
ciple or elseto elaboratethe mechanismsthrough which schoolsare linked to state
and economic structures. These trends are apparent in critical analysis from a
Canadian political economy tradition oriented to explaining the development
of Canada's resource-basedeconomy, the Canadian class structure, the social
and economic impact of Canada'sdependenceon Europeanand American capital,
 Socrorocrce.r TnsoRrES oF EoucerroN

Box2.3 A Neo-Marxist
Perspective
ontheSociology
of Education

Herbert Gintis and Samuel Bowles (1980: 52-3) outline the correspondence
principle that links schooling with the economy:

A main propositionin Schoolingin CapitalistAmericaheld that a majorobjective

of capital,in its interventions
intothe formationand evolutionof the educational
system,was preciselythe preparationof studentsto be futureworkerson the
variouslevelsin the hierarchyof capitalistproduction.Giventhe quitesignificant
successof capitaldirectlyand indirectlystructuringschoolsand in the face of
the undemocratic natureof economiclife,schoolscouldnot fulfilltheiregalitarian
and developmental objectives.We concludedthat the only meanstowardsthe
achievementof progressiveeducationalreform is the democratisationof
economiclife,allowingfor a democraticand emancipatory schoolsystemwhich
does not conflictwith the formationof adultscapableof effectiveparticipation
in the systemof production.
We also arguedspecificallythat the currentrelationshipbetweeneducation
and economyis ensurednot throughthe contentof educationbut its form:the
'social
relationsof the educationalencounter.Educationpreparesstudentsto be
workersthrougha correspondence betweenthe socialrelationsof production
and the socialrelationsof education.Likethe divisionof labourin the capitalist
enterprise,the educationalsystemis a finelygradedhierarchyof authorityand
control in which competitionratherthan co-operationgovernsthe relations
among participants, and an externalrewardsystem-wages in the case of the
economyand grades in the caseof schools-holds sway.Thiscorrespondence
principleexplainswhy the schoolscannotat the sametime promotefullpersonal
developmentand socialequality,while integratingstudentsinto society.The
hierarchicalorder of the school system,admirablygearedtowards preparing
students for their future positionsin the hierarchyof production,limits the
developmentof those personalcapacitiesinvolvingthe exerciseof reciprocaland
mutualdemocraticparticipation and reinforcessocialinequalityby legitimating
the assignmentof studentsto inherently unequal'slots'in the socialhierdrchy.
The correspondence principle,we believe,makesfour positivecontributions
to progressiveeducationalstrategy,First,its explanatoryvalueis great. Despite
the considerable scepticismwhichgreetedpublicationof our book, criticshave
made littleheadwayin overturningour majorempiricalconclusions.Indeedthe
one major subsequentstatisticalinvestigationof sourcesof educationaland
economic success-Christopher Jencks et al,'s Who Gefs Ahead?-
dramaticallyconfirmsour own findings.Second,in an era wherethe failuresof
liberalschool reformhave become increasinglyevidentto policy-makersand
the public,the correspondence principleshowsa positivealternative. Egalitarian
38 TnE Socror,ocy or EoucerroN rN CeNnol

and humanisticeducationare not unattainable due to some inherentdefect in

humannatureor advancedindustrialsociety,but to the undemocraticnatureof
participationin economiclife.Educationalreformrequiresat the same time
economictransformation towardsdemocraticsocialism.Third,our formulation
rectifiesan earlierpre-occupationof both liberaland Marxiananalysiswith the
oveft contentof schooling.By focussingupon the experienceof schooling,the
correspondenceprincipleprovidesa consistentanalyticalframeworkfor
understanding the schoolas an arenaof structuredsocialinteraction. Fourth,our
formulationof the correspondenceprinciplecontributesto a more positive
understanding of the goalsof socialisttransition.In older critiquesof capitalist
society,almost uniquestresswas laid on the privateownershipof means of
production.At leastas far as educationalreformis concerned,we have been
ableto showthat not ownership,but controlis centraltosocialinequities. Merely
passingfrom privateto socialownershipwithoutchallengingin any substantial
way the socialrelationsof economiclife,can haveno impacton the egalitarian
and humanisticgoalsof progressiveeducationalreform.The correspondence
principlethen representsa powerfulantidoteto the authoritarian tendenciesall
too oftenfound in an othenviseprogressive socialmovement.
'
Source: Gintis, Herbert, and Samuel Bowles, 1980.'Contradiction and Reproduction in Educational Theory',
in Barton et al., eds, Schooling,Ideology and the Curriculum. Reprinted by permission of Falmer Press.

and subsequent attempts to delineate the emergence of one or more distinct

Canadian nations. A preoccupation with historical preconditions and patterns of
economic development has often left schooling as an unproblematic or absent
force in such literature. In Wallace Clement's (1974) influential analysisof The
Canadian CorporateElite, for instance,education is mentioned only in passingas
a devicefor conveyingclass-based privilege from one generationto the next, while
more thorough subsequentreviews of the 'new' political economy literature in
Canada (Clement and Williams, 1989;Clement and Vosko, 2003) offer only inci-
dental, if any, allusions to schooling and education despite covering such themes
as immigration, gender,labour markets,welfare statepolicy, media, and youth.
There is, however,a substantialbody of political economic analysisof Canadian
education.TWoimportant books published in the 1970sfocusedon a growing lit-
erature of critical analysisthat emphasizedhow schooling was integratedwith the
corporate order under capitalism.The Politicsof the CanadianPublic School,edited
by GeorgeMartell (1974).,documents in a manner that continues to be highly rel-
evant severalissuesof importance to Canadian education,including the reinforce-
ment of class inequalities, the infusion of corporate values and profit-making
strategiesinto the curriculum, and the political mobilization of teachers'move-
ments. Reading, Writing, and Riches:Education and the Socio-EconomicOrder in
I,{orthAmerica,editedby RandleNelsenand David Nock ( 1978),extendsthis analy-
 S o c l o r o c l c e r T r r E o R r E so F E o u c a r r o n

sis,detailing such additional issuesas corporate control over post-secondaryedu-

cation and the subordination of Native peoples.
These books, along with analysespresented by Lockhart (1979).,Schecter
(1977),Livingstone(1983,1985),Wotherspoon (1987),and others,have revealed
the extent to which the Canadian education system has been infused with class-
based ideologies and practices.Growing concern about the role that corporate
interestsare playing in aligning education more closelywith businessand market
priorities has stimulated a revival of critical analysisof education (Harrison and
Kachur, 1999;Robertson et al., 2003;Taylor,200l). However, preoccupation with
economic reproduction within Marxist and political economy frameworks has
often tended to overgeneralizethe powers that capitalism, capitalists,and domi-
nant economic forces have in shaping social life, and thereby to undermine edu-
cation'scapacityto changeand be changedthrough interaction among educators,
students, community members, and other social forces. Gaskell (1992: 22)
observesthat'Critical theory and Marxist theory, despitetheir impact on scholar-
ship, made few inroads with educational practitioners, who were frequently the
targetsof the critique, or with policy-makers,who were told there was not much
to be done anywaywithin the framework of a capitalisteconomy.'Ironically, some
Marxist analysiscan also be criticized for its commitment to social change, in
wh.ichthe impression is createdthat, with proper revolutionary consciousnessand
effective political agents,radical social transformation appears to be inevitable
(Davies, 1995: 1465-6).
Growing recognition of the dual nature of education,as a force that can foster
critical sensitivityand empower people to take control over aspectsof their lives as
well as one that contributes to subordination and disempowerment,forced educa-
tors and educational researchersto develop more sophisticatededucational cri-
tiques. Analysis came to focus not only on what is wrong with schooling, which
has commonly been the main theme of orthodox Marxism and political economy,
but also how education might facilitate individual and social transformation.
Political economic analysisis often integrated with insights derived from other
critical theories,including feminism and anti-racism, as well as statistical,histori-
cal, and comparative research,to produce richer critiques of contemporary edu-
cational issuesand to suggestalternativevisions (Livingstone, 2004; Sears,2003;
Thylor,200l; Torresand Mitchell, 1998).
Theories of cultural reproduction offer possibilitiesto link detailed examina-
tion of specificeducational practices,akin to interpretative studies,with process-
esthat contribute to the maintenanceof socialstructures.This approach is heavily
influenced by the work of Pierre Bourdieu (1977; 1984) in France, Paul Willis
(1977) and Basil Bernstein(1977) in Britain, and Michael Apple (1995,2004) in
the United States.
Bourdieu agreeswith the Marxist position that education contributes to the
perpetuation of classinequalities and other dimensions of unequal social struc-
tures. However, he is more concerned with social practicesthat affect how these
 TrrE Socror-ocy or EoucarroN rN CnN,c.oe

inequalities can be variously reproduced or altered.Capital exists in the form of

social,cultural, and symbolic assetsaswell asbeing an economic factor.Power and
prestigeconvey definite advantagesto members of privileged socialgroups, which
in turn can be transmitted acrossgenerations,but these are only effectiveto the
extent that they can be converted from potential to real benefits.For Bourdieu, a
person'sfamily background and social circumstancescontribute to'habitus' (dis-
positions) or deeply ingrained experiential leanings that influence their options
and actions in relation to specifictypes of socialsituations (which he terms'fields'
of interaction). Schoolsand other educationalinstitutions are infused with class-
based assumptions and expectationsrelated to such things as rules of conduct,
manners of expression,and background knowledge,giving some people a compet-
itive advantageover others in their understandingand application. However,edu-
cation, as it gains significanceas a mechanism to grant credentialsand provide
legitimateaccessto socialand economic opportunities, alsobecomesa site through
which various social groups struggle for position and advantage.Bourdieu and
Passeron(1979:77),echoingneo-Weberiananalysisof credentialinflation, observe
that,'When classfractionswho previouslymade little useof the school systementer
the race for academicqualifications,the effect is to force the groups whose repro-
duction was mainly or exclusivelyachieved through education to step up their
investmentsso as to maintain the relativescarcityof their qualifications and, con-
sequently,their position in the classstructure.'
The framework introduced by Bourdieu has gained increasingprominence as
researcherspay greater attention to the intricate interconnectionsamong school-
ing, human agency,and structural inequalities (Lareau and Horvat,1999; Lareau
and Weininger,2003;Sullivan,2002).ln Canada,this approachhas been especial-
ly useful for offering insightsthat take us beyond statisticalregularitiesto highlight
the ways in which socialbackground and personal circumstancesinfluence choic-
es that have longer-term significance.The analysisof strategiesthat draw on dif-
ferent forms of capital has been applied, for example,to the exploration of how
British Columbia students'social backgrounds and schooling experiencesaffect
the educationaland occupationalpathwaysthat they subsequentlyfollow (Andres
Bellamy, 1993), the economic, cultural, and institutional factors that limit post-
secondaryeducational horizons and accessfor students from rural areas(Andres
and Looker,2001),the selectivemechanismsthat contribute to and reinforcegen-
der segmentationin information technology fields (Taylor, 2005), and the inter-
secting class,social,and cultural factors that have a decisiveimpact on whether a
student continues with or drops out of higher education (Lehmann,2007).
Willis, through extensiveobservationsand interviews, traced a group of boys
in a working-classtown in the United Kingdom from their secondaryschooling
into their earlypost-schoolworking lives.Willis demonstratesthat, while econom-
ic reproduction occurs in predictablefashion in the sensethat the boys are destined
for occupationalfutures consistentwith their classbackgrounds,there is a complex
interplay among the social and cultural factors that produce those outcomes.Jobs
 oF EnucetroN
Socrorocrcer TuEoRTES 4r

and socialpositions are not mechanicallypredeterminedbut developthrough spe-

cific choicesand experiencesthat arise,in part, through life in schools.The work-
'lads'
ing-class Willis observes engage in forms of resistanceand rebellion to
schooling that range from mocking school authority to verbal abuse,theft, and
vandalism becausethey seein the middle-classstandardsof schoolslittle that is of
interest or relevanceto their lives.By withdrawing from the mainstream of school
life, the lads selecta path leading to short-term work that at first offers excitement
and independencebut eventuallyresultsin low-paying jobs with few prospectsfor
meaningful working lives.Willis arguesthat thesechoicesrevealwhat he calls'put-
tial penetrations'.In other words, students are able to see through or penetrate
weaknessesin the dominant meritocratic ideology becausetheir experiencecon-
tradicts the official argument that school successand hard work lead to socialsuc-
cess.However, their insights are only partial in the sensethat the options they
chooselead them to a life of deadeningroutine that reinforcesrather than trans-
forms social inequalities.
Michael Apple's analysis of schooling proceeds from the recognition that
schoolscontribute actively to the production, as well as the reproduction, of cul-
tural practicesand social structures.Apple, like Willis, acceptsthe Marxist argu-
ment that schoolscontribute to social control and the maintenanceof structured
inequalities,but he argues-consistent with the new sociologyof education-that
schoolsalso createand processknowledge.This work has given rise to a rich tra-
dition of work demonstrating how schoolsdo more than simply transmit knowl-
edge and ascribe places for individuals in society.Within schooling, ideas and
understandings about the world and our place in the world are shaped by the
actions of educational participants, which in turn are circumscribed by power
relations and political economic structures (seeespeciallyWeis et al., 2006).
The work of Apple and Willis has helped to advancewhat has come to be known _
' n
as resistancetheory. Resistancetheory, unlike.Ihe.{noJe-o,n* *ro
'r"''
of social reproduction that tend to be conveyedby structural functionalist and
'^r
orthodox Marxist analyses, portrays schoolingas a venuethat is continually subject- .
ed to contestation.Students do not blindly and automatically move from schooling
into preordained social positions. Rather, their active participation in schooling
involves diverse responsesthat range from enthusiasticacceptanceto b[atant rejec-
tion of the curriculum, of the manner in which it is transmitted,and of other aspects
of the schooling process.Moreover, there are significant variations in how curricula
and educational practicesare presentedto and experiencedby various categoriesof
studentsas distinguishedby such factors as gender,race,ethnicity, and age.Boys and
girls, for instance,are often taught differently and bring with them distinct frames of
referencethrough which they subsequentlyinterpret the curriculum.
Resistancetheory, in more general terms, brings to the forefront the dynamic
elementsof educational practicesand cultures without losing sight of the social,
economic, and political contexts within which schooling operates.This work is
being extended in many important ways to explore the complex ways in which
 42 Tnp SocIoLocy op Eouc,c.TloN IN C,tr.uaol

people are coping with uncertainties associatedwith existenceand identity in a

world being transformed by global challenges(Dolby and Dimitriadis, 2004).
Nayak (2003), for instance,returning attention to the northeast of England where
Willis conducted his ethnographic research,explores how diverseyouth subcul-
tures are createdboth within and acrossboundaries of race, class,and gender as
young people attempt to negotiatemeaningful placesand identities in a world full
of risk (a theme also discussedby Nolan and Anyon, 2004).Apple (2006: 681),
reviewing notable recentAmerican contributions to the critical analysisof educa-
tion in the United States,reiteratesthe vital role that this analysisserves'toillumi-
nate the ways in which educational policy and practice are connected to the
relations of exploitation and domination in the larger society'at the same time as
they point to the visions and possibilitiesfor radical change.
.*Frryllisltfieo_ryhas alsoadvancedconsiderablyour ability to understandeduca-
tion, in particular its divergentforms and interests.Feminist analysishas an exten-
sive history that has been reformulated into systematicacademic and political
discourseover the past four decades.Critiques of schooling that we would now
characterizeas feminist were prevalent,for instance,in eighteenth-centuryargu-
ments that accessto education was a fundamental right for women as well as for
men; in nineteenth-centurydebatesover whether boys and girls should take or be
. in the same classesas one another, and whether women should be admitted into
universities;in nineteenth- and early twentieth-century strugglesby women teach-
ers to gain recognition for their work and to improve their working conditions; and
in later efforts to incorporate subjects and knowledge pertinent to girls' and
women's lives into the curriculum. Despitethesehistorical roots, the emergenceof
a distinct feminist analysisof schoolingcan be traced to the rising consciousness in
the late 1960sand early 1970sof genderinequalitiesin education aswell as in other
spheresof social,economic,and domestic activity (Gaskellet al., 1989).
There are severalforms of feminist analysis,unified by recognition of women's
disadvantageand lack of privilege relativeto men and of the need for socialaction
to redresswomen's oppression.Most early feminist analysesof schooling focused
on questions about sexism in the classroomand curricula and unequal distribu-
tions of men and women in different positions within the education system
(Kenway and Modra,1992: 140-8). These concernsare most characteristicof lib-
eral feminism, which proposesreforms to alleviatesex bias and createmore equi-
table gender representation in socially important positions. In schools, for
example, employment equity measuresare commonly identified as a response
neededto compensatefor the fact that, while women teachersoutnumber men at
nearly all levelsof schooling up to the senior grades,most educationaladministra-
tors are male. Liberal feminists advocatechange,but argue that gender equity can
be attained through modifications within existing social, educational, and eco-
nom ic ar r ang e me n ts .
Other feminists contend that effective change requires a more fundamental
restructuring of socialpracticesand structures.It is not sufficient simply to ensure
 Soctoroclc,rr T H E o R T E So F E o u c e r r o N 43

equitable numbers of women and men in socially important positions, or that

textbooks contain languageand examplesthat apply to girls'and women's as well
as to boys'and men's lives. Radical feminism has pointed out that patriarchy, or
the systematic devaluation and oppression of women, is embedded within all
forms of social organization.Language,science,politics, the economy, and other
spheresof activity are organizedaround waysof knowing and doing that take male
experienceas the norm. Women's experience,by contrast,is undermined and rel-
egatedto the margins of what is consideredto be socially important. Women-
and spheresof life such as the domestic and sexual realms that give particular
shapeand meaning to their lives-are frequently absentas subjectsand objectsof
study. In the sociologyof education, for instance,feminist analystshave criti cized
classroomstudies,such as Willis's, for ignoring the central role that gender plays
in the construction of student school experienceand school outcomes (Weiler,
1988: 4l-2). More radical versionsof feminism, in the process,have also inspired
researchersand educatorsto take seriously questionsabout sexuality,body prac-
tices,socialidentity, and relatedissuesthat havetypically been excludedfrom edu-
cation and related discourses.
Socialistfeminism,like radical feminism, views liberal reforms as insufficient to
overcomegender inequalities,but emphasizessocial differencesamong, as well as
between,men and women. Women's subordination must be understood in terms
not only of genderbut also of class(as weli as race and other important aspectsof
socialexperience).The way in which gender influencespeople varies insofar as our
lives are shapedby the distinct positions we occupy within society,including the
opportunities we have for accessto power and other crucial resources.
Feminist pedagogyhas emergedas a way to unifr women's common concerns,
nroving beyond specificlabelstowards clearerarticulation of strategiesto address
practicalproblems (Luke and Gore,1992). Feministsargue that the incorporation
of women and their experiencesinto researchis an important part of the wider
processwithin which women are to make senseof and reclaim their lives. This
involves the recognition of issuesthat are meaningful in an everyday context but
commonly absentfrom curricula and public discussion,such as domesticviolence,
public safety concerns, competing family and career demands, and personal
cncounters with sexism. Women's voices, often emerging through accounts of
their own experiences,become an important device to identifiz,clarifr, and seek
t''ositivesolutions to social problems (Brookes, 1992).In this way, possibilitiesare
;reated to realizethe potential education holds to be truly liberating and progres-
-ive. bell hooks (2000:xiii), emphasizingthe need for a critical feminism ground-
..d in an understanding of how gender,race, and classintersect,emphasizesthat,
Iust as our lives are not fixed or static but always changing, our theory must
:cmain fluid, open, responsiveto new information.'
These insights have encouragedrecent feminist scholarship,often in conjunc-
:ion with critical pedagogy,new political economy, and post-structuralist and
'rostmodernistcritiques,to developa vision of socialjustice that proceedsfrom an
 TnE SocroI-ocy or EoucarroN rN CnNeoe

understanding of the multiple causesof oppression (Arnot and Weiler, 1993;

Kenwayand Willis, 1998).Increasingrecognition is also given to analysisthat links
personal or biographical experienceswith wider structuresof power and inequal-
ity. Gaskell(1992), for example,detailshow changesin schooling,labour markets,
and socializationprocessesare intertwined with life choicesand chancesto pro-
duce different educationaland vocational careerpatternsfor girls and boys and for
women and men. Diverse frameworks such as those elaboratedby Bourdieu, as
well as other critical studies of power, hold considerablepotential for advancing
feminist engagementwith issuesassociatedwith hierarchy,domination, and alter-
native possibilities(Dillabough, 2004).
As with many other theoretical perspectives,feminist analysishas increasingly
sought to incorporate a more complex understanding of how personal identities
and socialopportunities are being reshapedby the complex interplay among shift-
ing political, social,cultural, and economic relationships.The impact of changes
associatedwith globalization and more localized processestends to be highly
uneven.Arnot and Dillabough (1999 184-5) emphasizea need for strugglesfor
democracy in education to be recastto take into account thesechanging and con-
testedcircumstances,thereby requiring feminist analysis:

to go beyonda feministengagement with questionsof voice,subjectivity,

and dif-
ference.It alsomust remaincommittedto the ideathat women,asagentsof knowl-
edge(not foundationalistknowledge!), needto makeclaimsabouttheir identityin
order to effectbroadsocialand politicalchange.Theseagentsare not uniform in
character; theytakemultiple,dynamicpositionsthat oftenarein tension.However,
theymustbeviewedasmembersof a heterogeneous communitywho areconcerned
with how new socialand politicalformations(e.g.,neo-liberalism)structurethe
relationshipbetweengenderand democraticeducation.

There are important gender-baseddifferencesin how contemporary socialand

economic transitions are experienced and understood. These transformations
have also forced us to reconsiderthe meaning of gender and how it intersectswith
other important social characteristics,including classand race.The expansion of
educational opportunities, both in general and in new opportunities in several
non-traditional fields, has advanced women's social, economic, and political
prospectsin numerous ways.At the same time, many women have not had equi-
table accessto or returns from education as a consequenceof domestic, occupa-
tional, social, and cultural circumstances,as well as institutional and structural
factors. Feminist analysis has highlighted, for instance, the disproportionate
impact of economic restructuring and state cutbacks that affect employment in
government servicesand non-unionized sectors in which high proportions of
women are employed. In the process,women often face further pressuresto care
for dependantsand take on added responsibilitiesto manage the impact of eco-
nomic uncertainty in the household and community. Later chapters (particular
 s F Eoucnrrou
Soclorocrcer TnE,oRrEo 45

Box2.4 A Feminist
Perspective of Education
0ntheSociology

Feminist analysishas become increasinglyconcernednot only with questions

related to gender-baseddifferencesin social positions and identities,but also
with a socialworld that has been transformed, in part, through previous fem-
inist strugglesfor equity and voice. |ohanna Wyr, Sandra Acker, and Elizabeth
Richards (2000: 444-6) explore the experiencesof women who have moved
into managerial positions in universitiesin Canada and Australia in contexts
in which universitiesthemselvesare under pressureto adhere to logics based
on market forces and new managerial imperatives:

[W]ecan concludethat the women in this study have consciouslystrivento

'make' themselves
senioracademicsand managers,'differently'from their
perceptionsof the traditionalmaleacademic.As the researchreveals,even as
relativelypowerfulplayers,they are also consciousof the impossibility
of being
assimilated universityprocesses.
fullyinto the taken-for-granted
Hence,to be a woman managerin a universityis indeedto be remindedof
an identityone is not, and constantlyto haveto definethe identityone is.
. Our study dependson qualitative, narrativetechniquesto focus on the fine
detailsof everydayexperiencein the livesof seniorwomen in facultiesof
education. Theirtalesof inclusionand exclusion, centralityand marginalisation,
innovationand traditionare documented,with attentionto the contradictions
apparentin the storiesof women who find themselvesin seniorpositionsin
situationswherethey have few predecessors. Their perspectivessupportthe
view that, whilewe have much to gain from studyingwomen'sparticipationin
the management of universities,their contribution cannot be simply
characterised as a 'women'sway' of leading(Blackmore, 1999,p, 56).The study
has provided a perspective on a cohort of women that has engagedin similar
strugglesin universities acrosstwo countriesduringthe 1970s, 1980s and
1990s.Theiroverurhelming concernsreflectthe idealsof this period:thoseof the
improvementof educationalopportunityfor disadvantaged groups,and the
creationof more diverseand inclusiveoracticeswithinthe institution.
In both countries,these seniorwomen saw themselvesas beingforcesfor
change, with greateror lesser success. Many had feministcommitments
(althoughthey mightdenyfeminismin individual ways)and wantedto makethe
academya better place for both women and men. Many believedthey had
somethinguniqueto offeras women in leadershiproles.Some had instituted
specificpracticestowardsthat end,for example,makingspecialeffortsto mentor
and supportjuniorfaculty.Both optimismand disappointment framedtheir
accounts.Paradoxically, they were simultaneously centraland marginalwithin
Theymightbe well placedto innovateand improveaspectsof
theirinstitutions.
46 THE Socrol-ocy or EnucerroN rN CeNaoa

academicwork or university practice,but at the sametime,theywerefrequently

themselvesisolatedand acutelyconsciousof their 'difference'from men senior
colleaguesand sometimesfrom other women colleaguesas well. . . .
Feministknowledgeproductionand politicalwork would seem to be at odds
with the directionof thesechanges.Yet,the informaldemandson womens emo-
tionallabourare likelyto increaseas women 'struggleto undertakefeministwork
in conditionswhich are both increasinglyhostileto it and increasethe needfor it'
(Kenway& Langmead,1998,p.30). Not all the women interviewed considered
themselvesfeminists,but as we haveshown,allwerecommittedto 'making a dif-
ference',oftenalongfeministlines.ls the universityto which women are makinga
differencemorein tunewith the universityof the pastthanthat of the future?To the
extentthat the answeris 'yes',thereis a needto developa new understanding of
the roleof women in leadership.The women whose perspectivesare described
in this adiclehaveuseda rangeof strategiesin 'fortifyingthe difference',and their
viewsprovidea keyto understandingwhat it meansto be leadersand managers
in thesetimes.We wouldsuggestthat the insightsgainedfromtheirexperiences
over the last quarler of a century are an importantelement in the process of
developinga new feministpoliticsof leadershipfor the twenty-firstcentury.
Source:Wynn, |ohanna, et al. 'Making a Difference:Women in Australian and CanadianFacultiesof
Eduction', Gender and Education.Reprinted by permission of the publisher (Tayior & Francis Ltd.,
http://www.tandf.co.
uk/iournals).

Chapters4,6,and 7) discussparticularbarriersthat restricteducationaladvance-

ment, especiallyfor women in non-privileged segmentsof North American pop-
uiations and for girls and women in many less-developednations. Feminism
placesquestionsabout gender and strategiesto foster democratic social changeat
the heart of our understanding of the social world.
Anti-racism educatlonsharesmany of the concerns central to feminism and
other critical analysis,including a commitment to social changeguided by social
analysis,with a more explicit focus on differential and unequal treatment basedon
race.Race,understood in this way,does not exist as a static socialcategoryor iden-
tity, but is implicated in processesof racializationthat ascribeto racial character-
istics varying forms of significancein the context of power relations.Anti-racism
education is not the same as multicultural education, with which it is sometimes
confused. Multicultural education shares with liberalism and human capital
approachesa focus on rights and cultural differencesbut gives relatively limited
attention to the underlying causesof racial inequalities (Kailin,2002:52-4).
Racism is perpetuated through social practices and structures that subordinate
racial minorities, including the languageused to categorizeand describepeople
from various racial and cultural backgrounds. Anti-racism analysis extends
beyond the simple categorizationof people on the basisof racial characteristicsin
order to highlight the diverseways in which people'slives are affectedby intersect-
 S o c r o r o c r c e r T n n o R r E So F E p u c l r r o N 47

ing forms of oppressionbasedon class,gender,race,and other social characteris-

tics. Racism has played a powerful role in limiting the life chancesfor specific
groups, such as African-American students (Ogbu, 1994) or Aboriginal people in
Canada (Monture-Angus, 1995).
An anti-racism education approach has three main concerns-to exposehow
racism, both in itself and in conjunction with other types of oppression, con-
tributes to the suppressionof opportunities for specificracializedgroups;to exam-
ine the impact of racism; and to develop strategiesto counter racially based
subordination.Schoolingis a primary focal point in anti-racism theory. Educators
irnd the educationalcontextsthat they work in have a significant impact on issues
and practicesassociatedwith racial differenceand inequality. Education contains
the potential, alternatively,to critique and modifr, or to ignore and reinforce,
unequal racial identities and associatedpractices (Dei, 1996; Dei and Calliste,
1000). Anti-racism education has sensitizededucators to the continuing signifi-
canceof race-relatedoppressionin and beyond schools.It has also posed impor-
tant questions about how racialized forms of inequality can best be countered.
\\hile much anti-racist analysishas focusedon'talk'and awarenessrelatedto indi-
vidual encounterswith racism,there is a critical need to embed anti-racism within
nrore systematic practices aimed at fostering effective institutional and organiza-
tional change(Srivastava,2007:308-9).Part of this analysishas expandedour con-
siderationnot only of schoolpractices,but alsoof the nature of knowledge.Schools
historicallyhave severedthe links that many minority communities have with tra-
,-litionalforms of knowledge and ways of knowing. However, many racialized pop-
rulations,including First Nations and African Canadians, have looked towards
prospectsto reclaim and gain recognition for their indigenous knowledgesas part
of wider strategiesfor social and economic empowerment. These challengeshave
forced educators and educational researchersto reconsider deeply embedded
.rssumptionsabout what we mean by knowledge,and what the application of these
.rssumptionswithin schooling practicesmeans for different student bodies. They
iravealso expandedthe focus on anti-racism from preoccupation with the racial-
'visible 'whiteness'
ization of minority' categoriesto critical studies that take into
consideration,as well, the practicesand discoursesaround which'whiteness' has
- lreenconstructedas an invisible but powerful socialentity (Dei et al., 2004).
_ Critical pe4!S!*gl is a related form of analysisthat has emerged in an attempt to
iink educationaltheory with practice.This is not unique insofar as all critical the-
,rrv, including Marxism, feminism, and other critical approaches,is unified by the
:'esearcher's commitment to try to changethe world, rather than to act as an exter-
:ral observerwho is studying it in an apparently detachedand objectivemanner. A
:requent limitation of the critical theories of education discussedto this point,
lhough, has been their tendency to have little application to real educational set-
:ings. Educational participants who have been informed by critical analysismay
Jer.elopa heightenedawarenessof their placewithin schooling as they attempt to
:'ectiff problems associatedwith social and educational disadvantage.However, a
48 Tne Socrolocy or EnucerroN rN Cnxnor

Perspective
Box2.5 A GriticalPedagogy
ontheSociology of Education

JoeL. Kincheloe (2007: 16-17) addressesthe role that critical pedagogymust

play in a complex world by linking people'slived experienceswith an analysis
of social structures and power relations in order to work towards social trans-
formation through the empowerment of both teachersand students:

In order to developa criticalpedagogyas a form of culturalpolitics,it is

imperativethat proponentsof a complexcriticalpedagogyappreciatethe fact
that alleducationalspacesare uniqueand politically contested.Constructedby
historyand challengedby a wide varietyof interestgroups,educationalpractice
is an ambiguousphenomenonas it takesplacein numeroussettings,is molded
by numerousand often invisibleforcesand structures,and can operateunder
the flag of democracy and justice in oppressive and totalitarianways.
Practitioners of criticalpedagogyreportthat some teachereducationstudents,
educationalleaders,parents,and membersof the generalpublic often have
difficultyappreciating the fact that schoolingcan be hurlfultoparticularstudents
from specificbackgroundsin uniquesocial,cultural,and economicsettings-
for example,indigenousand aboriginalstudents.Many individualsoften have
trouble empathizingwith students harmed by such negativeeducational
dynamicsbecauseschoolingin theirexperiencehas playedsuch a positiverole
in theirown lives,
Thus,a complexcriticalpedagogyis a domainof researchand practicethat
asks much from those who embraceit. Criticalpedagogicalteachereducation
and leadership, for example,involvemorethan learningpedagogicaltechniques
and the knowledgerequiredby the mandatedcurriculum.In additionto acquiring
teachingmethods,teachersand leaderssteepedin criticalpedagogyalso
understand and politicaldimensions
the social,economic,psychological, of the
schools,districts,and systemsin whichtheyoperate,Theyalsopossessa wide
rangeof knowledgeabout informationsystemsin the largerculturethat serve
as pedagogicalforces in the livesof studentsand other membersof society:
television,radio, popularmusic, movies,the Internet,podcasts,and youth
subcultures;alternativebodies of knowledge produced by indigenous,
marginalized, or low-statusgroups;the ways differentforms of power operate
to constructidentitiesand empowerand oppressparticulargroups;and the
modus operandiof the ways socioculturalregulationoperates.
Democracyis a fragileentity,advocatesof criticalpedagogymaintain,and
embeddedin educationalpolicyand practiceare the very issuesthat make or
breakit. Understandingthese diversedimensionsand structuresthat shape
schoolingand the knowledgeit conveysis necessary,criticalpedagogues
believe,to the very survivalof democraticschooling-not to mentionthe
 So c ro ro c l c e r T n e oR rnsoF E oucarroN 49

continuedexistenceof democracyitself.The analysisof the waysthesecomplex

forcesevolvein a globalized,technological,
electroniccommunications-based
era marked by grand human migrationsis centralto the complex critical
pedagogyproposedhere.
Source: Reprinted by permission of Harvard Educational Review.

tendency in much critical analysisto focus on powerful oppressiveforces often

producesa senseof futility that things cannot be changed.Critical pedagogyaims
to overcomethe gap betweenunderstanding educationalreproduction and taking
action to provide social and educationaltransformation.
Education, as presentedwithin critical pedagogy,contributes to the perpetua-
tion of knowledge and power structuresthat foster the oppressionof subordinate
groupsby dominant groups,but it also containspossibilitiesto empower persons
in subordinated positions to change their lives and the social contexts within
which they live. In this sense,while critical pedagogy,as a label, is relativelynew, it
builds on recognition of numerous historical examples of struggles in which
oppressedgroups have sought to use education as a means to gain control over
their lives-from colonized peoplesin Asia, Africa, and Latin America to margin-
alized inner-city residentsand First Nations peoplesin North America.
Critical pedagogybegins with a dialecticaland dynamic understanding of the
relationship betweentheory and action that locatesresearch,likeall human activ-
ity, within changingrelationsof domination, subordination,and resistance(see,
e.g., Freire, 1985; Giroux, 1983, 1988; Livingstone, 1987: 7-9; McLaren, 2007:
I96ff.; Darder et a1.,2003).Giroux and Mclaren (1989:xxi) emphasizethat criti-
'language 'critical
cal pedagogy involves a of protest' and a theory of education'
'constructing
directed towards the task of a new vision of the future'. The analysis
offsetsits portrayals of the despair of everydaylife and the social structures that
contribute to poverty, dehumanization, and hopelessnesswith the promise of
hope and prospectsfor meaningful change.
More than most other approacheswithin the sociology of education, critical
pedagogyis grounded in the actions of classroompractitioners.Theory is orient-
ed to addresstheir concernsdirectly by enabling them to comprehend their own
educational realities in relation to wider strugglesfor liberation. This has some-
times proven to be problematic, in part becausethe languageand philosophical
discourseemployed within critical pedagogy are posed in terms that have little
meaning for all but a few students and educators.While writers like Paulo Freire
and PeterMclaren are careful to integratetheir analysiswith everydayeducation-
al experience,there is a tendency in much critical pedagogy to become overly
abstractand removed from socio-cultural realities.This is especiallytrue of criti-
cal pedagogythat, in its heavy reliance upon postmodernist critiques of conven-
tional theory and practice, often appearsto favour the quest for clever turns of
phrasewhile neglectingsignificant social referencepoints.
 50 Tnn Socrol"ocy or EnuclrroN rN CeNnpl

To educatorswho have become cynical about recurrent waves of fashionable

educational ideologies and prescriptions for change,the idealistic and Utopian
visions of radical educational reform can be readily dismissed as irrelevant to
immediate classroomproblems. Nonetheless,critical pedagogyhas forced educa-
tors and analyststo clarifr the nature and significanceof educational practices
while they maintain awarenessof the socialcontextsthat shapeeducationalpossi-
bilities and limitations.

GurosuNES FoR REsnencHAND ANlrvsrs

IN THE SOcrOroGYor. EoucATIoN
This chapter has presentedan overview of severalinfluential and representative
theories within the sociological analysis of education. These theories represent
diverseapproachesthat offer distinct ways of defining researchproblems, collect-
ing and analyzing data, and explaining educational phenomena. Each of the
approachesoffers important insights into educationalpracticesand structures.We
have observed,as well, that severalfactors must be taken into consideration to
assessthe adequacyof any particular theory or approach.What assumptions do
we make about the world and how we study it? Does our interest lie, for example,
with an explanation of what happens inside classroomsor are we more con-
cerned with social,economic, and political structures (such as questionsabout
educational finance, policy-making, and social inequality) that operate beyond
the classroom?Is our focus on:
' current issuesor historical developments?
' educationalpracticesor the outcomes of schooling?
. formal or informal aspectsof the curriculum?
' factors that give rise to educational stability, or educational change and
conflict?

Differing theoretical perspectivesand approachesto scientific understanding

. lend themselvesto distinct ways of askingand investigatingsociologicalquestions.
-\ must recognizethat no single theory can addressall of these questions ade-
f1!
1lW.
\lquately. Increasingly,educationalanalysishas emphasizedthe paradox that, while
u certain problems are more amenable than others to particular theoretical ques-
tions and researchmethods, there is sometimes more common ground between
differing perspectivesthan is often supposed.These considerationsdo not mean,
however,that all theories are equally valid or that we can simply'pick and choose'
an approach in an attempt to investigatesocialor educationalphenomena.Rather,
we must be aware of guidelinesto ensurethat our analysisis systematicand pro-
vides an accurateaccount of the realitieswe are trying to understand.
It is useful, in this regard,to identi$' severalaspectsof educational realitieswe
have consideredso far that must be taken into account if we are to developan ade-
quate sociologicalunderstanding of education.Theseinclude the following:
 S o c r o r o c r c , q , rT H n o R r E so F E o u c e r r o r . r

' We must recognizeeducation as a broad set of practicesthat is not restricted

to specific institutional forms like schools, colleges, and universities.
Education takesplaceboth formally and informally in all aspectsof our lives.
Educationalpracticeshaveboth intended and unintended consequences.
' Formal education is riddled with contradictions. It can contribute to
enhancedsocialand economic opportunities, individual self-awareness, and
greater understanding of our place in the world, but it can also lead to
oppression,subordination,and restrictedsocio-economicopportunities.
' We must be able to understand, and link together, what happens inside
schoolsas well as the organizationand operation of the education systemas
a whole. The analysis of education, in turn, must be integrated with an
understanding of wider social processesand structures and strategiesfor
transformation.
' We must be awareof the historical factors that have given rise to education-
al systemsand processesof educational change.
' Formal education involvesthe production and dissemination of knowledge
and skills of various forms. We must be aware of how these processesare
contestedand often selectivein nature. so that we can understand the extent
to which they do or do not include and representdiversesocial interests.
' We must be sensitiveto how the needs and actions of educational practi-
tioners, including students,teachers,administrators,and policy-makers,can
both inform and be informed by educational analysis and research.It is
important, in this regard,to recognizethat none of thesegroups is homoge-
neous; rather, they reflect varied experiencescharactertzedby gender,race,
ethnicity, class,and other important social characteristics.

CoucrusroN
This chapterhas emphasizedthe importance of theory asa tool to guide our under-
standingof educationand its connectionswith other socialphenomena.Illustrative
theorieshave been presentedfrom three main sociologicalframeworks-structur-
al functionalism, interpretativeanalysis,and critical approaches-to highlight the
diversity of questionsand explanationsdrawn on by sociologists.The chapter has
concluded with a seriesof issuesthat need to be taken into account in order to
arrive at a comprehensiveunderstanding of education,with the recognition thatl&)ri.t
any single study or theory cannot encompassall of theseconcerns. I
The chaptersthat follow-informed especiallyby the insights of critical theo-
ries of education-address these issues.Critical analysis enables us to move
beyond the surfaceof educationalactivitiesto examine the underlying causesand
consequencesof educationalpractice.Through this analysis,ultimately, our aim is
not only to understand the contradictory nature of education but to work towards
a plan of action that allows us to make progressivechangesin educational prac-
ticesand outcomes.