A critical approach towards
education took form in the criticism of functionalist theory. While functional
theory had an emphasis on the consensus in society, critical theorists claimed
that there was a conflict between the interests of main groups, which are
classes in the capitalist society. In line with that understanding, they viewed
formal education as a field in which the unequal class order of the society is
reproduced and legitimated. Critical pedagogy generated among neo-Marxists and
the studies following this theory pedagogy were included in radical educational
theory in America and the new sociology of education in England (Weiler,1988).
The following is an account of critical approaches in the order of structural
and cultural reproduction followed by critical production theories.
Both Althusser and Bowles and
Gintis are structural neo-Marxists interested in the reproduction of existing
class relationships through schooling. In early 1970s, Althusser’s work, in
which he viewed school as an ideological state apparatus, became influential in
England. He asserted that school transmits the dominant ideology and the state
creates subjects by using schools. On the other hand, in America, Bowles and
Gintis, who are political economists, showed the ways ideological and economic
effects of schools reproduce social and economic inequality. Their basic claim
is that the market needs a docile work force and the school produces a
stratified work force with the necessary qualities. In their emphasis on the reproduction of
inequality they are considered critical but
were criticized for assuming a one to one correspondence between the
school and economic structures and for being implicitly functionalist
(Giroux,1983). While functionalism explained only the consensus in society,
structuralist neo-Marxists explained only the conflict and did not include the
struggles of the oppressed groups. (Ritzer &Goodman, 2004)
As against the structural
reproduction theories cultural reproduction theories emphasize agency and the
production of meaning and class identities through the struggle with the
dominant ideology. The most prominent theorist in that field is Bourdieu. Not being a Marxist, he uses a different
terminology but problematizes cultural reproduction at school by calling the
education system “an instrument of reproduction capable of disguising its own
function” (Bourdieu, 2004). His famous concepts “cultural capital” and
“habitus” also explain the legitimation of the existing social order in schools
through knowledge and modes of thought that characterize different classes. He
claims that the valued school knowledge is the knowledge of bourgeois classes.
For him the transmission of cultural capital by the family is an educational
investment as it determines the success of the child at school. He criticizes
the liberal ideas of human capital theorists, who argue that people’s lives are
determined by their education and capabilities, as such: “from the very
beginning, a definition of human capital, despite its humanistic connotations,
does not move beyond economism and ignores, inter alia, the fact that the
scholastic yield from educational action depends on the cultural capital
previously invested by the family” (Bourdieu, 2004).
Bernstein is another theorist who
highlighted the importance of the family background in determining the success
at school. He explained the process of transmission using language codes. For
him there are two codes; one is the elaborated code of middle classes and the
other one is the restricted code of the working classes. Since the elaborated
code is used in schools the working class children are at a disadvantage
(Giddens,2000,Tezcan, 2005). Apple (1984) states
that he was criticized for looking down on the culture of working class
although that was not what he intended. Although Bernstein directly referred to
gender in his later work, for him gender inequalities were meaningful only in
context of class oppression (Stromquist, 1990)
The critical production theories’
basic tenet is their commitment to social transformation. They address the ways
individuals and classes experience and resist the ideological and material
conditions. Struggles of the subordinated groups are not ignored in their
studies. In their early work, in which the social construction of knowledge and
positivism was questioned, the effect of phenomenological sociology is seen.
This work was criticized for not taking material conditions into consideration
and giving the message that once knowledge is realized as a social construct it
would lead to changes in power relations. (Weiler, 1988)
The ideas of Gramsci, an Italian
under the influence of Hegelian Marxism, changed the analysis of power
relations for good by the concept of hegemony. He is said to have transformed
the economic deterministic attitude of Marxist analysis. He claimed that
subordinate classes in the society created alternative cultural and political
institutions to change the oppression in reaction to the ideology imposed on
them by the dominant classes. Hegemony is an active pattern of power
relationship in which the consent of the oppressed is necessary. This concept
leaves room for struggle, as it is a continual process.
Gramsci expressed the need for
“organic intellectual”, a philosopher formed by common sense and knowledge of
historical and economic forces in the world, as against dominant intellectuals
who transmit hegemonic ideology. The school elaborates intellectuals and there
is a need for counter hegemonic institutions. In his analysis students are
products of historical processes but they are not passive recipients of
knowledge. They need to gain an historical dialectical conception of the world
since “to understand the present, one needs to know the past struggles”
(Weiler, 1988)
The concept of hegemony has been
highly influential on many theorists such as Apple, Connel, and McLarsen. By
using this concept, deviance in school culture was viewed from a different
perspective. In such kind of studies, subcultures were observed as acts of
resistance of individuals and groups (Weiler, 1988). For example Willis, in his
ethnographic study Learning to Labour
examines a group of working class boys who called themselves Lads, in a school
in England (Apple, 1984). Ironically, in this study the resistance of the boys
to the school culture resulted in the reproduction of their class positons. The
lads who position themselves against the hard working students in the same
school celebrate manual work as opposed to the intellectual work demanded of
them at school. One important point to be highlighted in this study is that
while the lads dropped out of school and joined the cheap labour force, the
hard working students, who were more in compliance with the school values,
pursued their education. Willis has been criticized for this study in different
respects. It obviously ignored the interplay of gender in the way these boys
positioned themselves against the females of their own class and the male
violence of the subculture they created. The significance of the study is that
by showing resistance to school culture it supported the idea that the values
are not transmitted flawlessly at schools.
Freire can be considered the most
well-known and influential figure in critical pedagogy. The literacy campaign
conducted in Latin America and the pedagogy he used has widely been quoted in
works of critical pedagogues. He believed in “a critical reading of the word
and the World” (Freire,1991). By claiming that the traditional pedagogy was
based on a banking approach, he established problem posing pedagogy.
“Conscientization”, reaching a critical awareness of the world and oneself,
empowers the oppressed groups. According to this understanding as the knowledge
that the oppressed groups have about themselves is the hegemonic knowledge of
the dominant group, they are the products of hegemonic ideologies and once this
cycle is broken the oppressed will engage in social praxis. By gaining a
consciousness about the power relations and situating themselves in those
relations they will be able to break the cycle. The learners are subjects in
his pedagogy from the beginning of the process and the nature of the dialogue
between the teacher and the learners entails that both learn from each other.
By saying that "the
oppressed, instead of striving for liberation, tend themselves to become
oppressors" (Freire, 1988; 26), he indicated a danger on the way to social
transformation. For real change to occur a new knowledge about the human
relationships need to be created as the existing one signifies oppression. This
process from the very beginning is full of struggle since "It would be a contradiction
in terms if the oppressors not only defended but actually implemented a
liberating education." (Freire, 1988: 28 )
However, this influential figure
used sexist language especially in his most famous work, the Pedagogy of the Oppressed. As Weiler (2001) notes, with the
effect of the critics he received from feminists, in later years of his life he
came to understand that he left women out by his use of generic “men” as the
subject and, unfortunately, failed to grasp the male privilege he had.
Giroux, another
influential figure of critical pedagogy in America, is important both due to
the criticism he made to the works of structural neo-Marxists and his demand
that the institution of education be made transparent. He claims that there is
an “over-determination of the structure” in Bowles and Gintis’s studies and
turns to the reproduction of culture in schooling (Tezcan, 2005). In his later
work Giroux rejects rationalism and writes about crossing the borders under the
title of “border pedagogy”. By putting the emphasis on diversity he turns to
postmodernism but never loses his emphasis on ideology as a tool of oppression.
McLaren has a unique standing in
the field as he distances himself from critical pedagogy by claiming that its
development is tied in a Gordian Knot especially in the United States. He coins
the term “revolutionary pedagogy” for his own pedagogy and attributes three
dimensions to it; first, to learn and investigate the differences among
education, pedagogy, critical pedagogy and revolutionary pedagogy; second, to
make the elimination of human suffering and pain the aim of education; third,
to establish a democratic socialist society (McLaren: 2006).
Apple, another contemporary
critical theorist from America, warns that the schooling system in America, as
elsewhere, is under the attack of the conservatives and neo-liberal ideology
and thus calls for the democratization of public schools (Tezcan, 2005). His
works are quite comprehensive on the relationship between the hidden curriculum
at school and the market, the deskilling of the teaching profession and the
ways schools contribute to the reproduction of the social order (Apple, 1984).
Like Freire he insists on the critical consciousness of the learner; “our aim
should not be to create “functional literacy,” but critical literacy, powerful
literacy, political literacy which enables the growth of genuine understanding
and control of all of the spheres of social life in which we participate”
(p:179). In his trilogy on education he astounds
that all types of inequalities need to be addressed at the same time but this
is a challenging task because of the ‘conservative modernization’ project at
work (Apple, 2004). He claims “ gender and class are not separate” (p: 158)
Apple is interested in the intersection of class and gender and provides an
account of working class girls in his analysis.
Despite being critical of the
system, most of these theorists, especially the early ones, failed to address
the gender inequality in the education system. Yet, their macro level analysis
is important in the sense that they were effective in proving that the school
as an institution is capable of producing or reproducing unequal positions in
the society (Stromquist, 1990). The works of the more contemporary critical
theorists started listing sexism along with racism and homophobia. However,
they do not specifically mention how to address gender inequality, it is
assumed that the same procedures used to empower ‘the oppressed’ will address
other types of inequalities. Yet, it would be too optimistic to assume that
teachers affected by critical ideas or pedagogy have gender consciousness and
are prone to gender biased attitudes.
0 Comments