Conflict Perspective and Education

In the conflict perspective of education, schools and educational systems are seen as tools of society. Educational systems are considered integral to the reproduction and reinforcement of the hierarchical nature of capitalist societies and maintain the domination of society's elite classes. Conflict theorists posit that the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of social stratification within capitalist societies is reproduced and perpetuated by subtly teaching subordinate groups that they are inferior, reinforcing existing class inequality within the social stratification, and discouraging alternative societal paradigms. This is done in part through a hidden curriculum, the inculcation of standards of proper behavior for the society or culture. Conflict theorists also posit that education reform can only come about if the capitalist economic system is first reformed. Although research has shown some support for conflict theories of education, much of this research can be interpreted differently.

Capitalism

Class

Conflict Perspective

Correspondence Principle

Credentialism

Functionalism

Hidden Curriculum

Social Stratification

Socioeconomic Status (SES)

Tracking

Conflict Perspective & Education

Overview

Within the United States today, education has become a major industry. Increasing percentages of the population are now obtaining high school diplomas, college degrees, and advanced or professional degrees compared with just a few decades ago. The outcomes of education include learning and the acquisition of knowledge, gaining the skills necessary to successfully compete for jobs, and acquiring the ability to be able to compete in the global marketplace. These outcomes are important for society to be able to maintain or improve its way of life. In addition, education has a role in socializing individuals by reinforcing what is considered proper or acceptable behavior within the society and culture as well as by helping to eliminate those attitudes and actions that are not considered appropriate.

In sociology, conflict analysis interprets social behavior through the perspective that social behavior is best explained and understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups. Therefore, conflict theorists tend to see the educational system as a tool of society (in particular, the elite classes within society that have the most power) that socializes individuals to stay within their classes. Conflict theorists emphasize the disintegrative aspects of education in opposition to the fundamentalists who emphasize the unifying potential of education. Rather than viewing educational systems as benign institutions, therefore, conflict analysis views them as institutions whose purpose is to maintain the domination of the elite classes within society. To do this, school systems subtly teach subordinate groups that they are inferior, reinforcing existing class inequality within the social stratification, and discouraging alternative societal paradigms. From the conflict perspective, educational systems are tools that socialize students to accept the values that are dictated by the more powerful classes within society. Concomitantly, conflict theorists posit that educational systems emphasize maintaining order over encouraging individualism and creativity. As a result, they contend, the norms, values and common structure of society tend to remain the same with little significant growth or change.

The Hidden Curriculum

According to conflict theorists, one of the ways that education maintains an elite class system is through the promotion of the hidden curriculum within the educational system. The hidden curriculum refers to the standards of proper behavior for a society or culture that are taught within the school system. The hidden curriculum is not part of the articulated curricula for schools, but is taught subtly through the reinforcement of behavior and attitudes that are deemed appropriate by the society or culture. According to conflict theorists, the hidden curriculum rises in part from two factors.

• First, in addition to teaching, teachers also need to maintain discipline in the classroom so that they can get the concepts contained in the articulated curriculum across to students.

• Second, educational systems tend to be highly bureaucratic in nature.

As a result, teachers can find themselves focusing on obedience to rules rather than teaching the articulated subject matter of the curriculum. For example, children are taught to raise their hand before asking a question, are required ask permission before going to the restroom, can only work on certain subjects during certain hours of the day, cannot talk in class, and are required to obey the rules that most teachers find essential for maintaining order in the classroom. Learning these concepts helps reinforce the hierarchical and authoritarian nature of society. Further, in many situations, students who have a better grasp of material are prohibited from helping those two are struggling to learn. When such situations arise, conflict theory posits that the emphasis in the classroom shifts from learning the material prescribed by the curriculum to pleasing the teacher. To some extent, obedience to authority is a necessary and desirable thing. For example, it is important to obey traffic laws if one hopes to avoid causing an accident while driving. However, in situations in which obedience to authority is overemphasized, creativity and independent thinking can be suppressed.

Increasing Levels of Education

As mentioned above, an increasing number of individuals in the United States are earning high school diplomas, college degrees, and advanced or professional degrees. Although from a functionalist perspective this is a desirable situation that benefits both the individual and society as a whole, conflict theorists take a more cynical view of such statistics. According to conflict theory, the fact that education bestows status on individuals helps to perpetuate social stratification. In addition, conflict theorists believe that educational systems typically deny disadvantaged students from getting the same educational—and resultant job—opportunities as other children. When this happens, the stratification of society is preserved in succeeding generations.

Tracking

According to conflict theorists, tracking is another way that social stratification is reinforced and supported by the educational system. Tracking is the educational practice of placing students into different curriculum groups based on achievement or aptitude test scores, prior performance, or other criteria. For example, students may be placed in a "gifted" track, a "remedial" track, or placed with the main body of students for that class or grade. Typically, tracking begins early in a child's educational career, often when students are first taught to read and are put into reading groups. Students from more influential backgrounds tend to have been taught the alphabet and the basics of reading at home and have been exposed to educational games, computers, other materials and technology that increase their reading readiness. Students from disadvantaged families that cannot afford or do not have access to these things are, therefore, less prepared to start reading than the other children. As a result, children who are less advantaged tend to be put into separate reading groups that focus on less advanced materials while the more advantaged children are segregated into other groups that help them to excel more. According to conflict theorists, therefore, rather than offering equal opportunities to all children, tracking only serves to reinforce and perpetuate the distinction between social classes.

Social Stratification

Conflict theorists not only believe that tracking systems reinforce social stratification and difference between social classes, they also tend to believe that tracking systems are actually designed to meet the needs of capitalist societies by preparing the skilled labor force necessary for capitalist societies to continue. This is done through what they refer to as the correspondence principle: The tendency of schools to promote the values expected of individuals within each social class in order to prepare students for the types of jobs that members of that class typically hold within society. For example, according to this principle, students from working class families are often placed in vocational education tracks rather than in college preparatory tracks because it is assumed that they will not go to college. As a result, these students do not receive the same training in leadership skills, decision making processes, and critical thinking as the more affluent children receive. These students are therefore less prepared for college and upward mobility and are more likely to fail if they attempt to break out of their class and move upward. Although this principle continues to inform the thinking of many conflict theorists, researchers have found that race and gender may have even more influence on educational experiences than does class.

Credentialism

Another way in which conflict theorists see education as reinforcing the stratification of society is through credentialism. This is a negative term that is used to refer to the requirement for educational credentials for their own sake as a prerequisite for employment or for conferring social status in place of an objective emphasis on the qualifications, skills, or abilities of the person. An example of credentialism would be a situation in which a person with the skills or experience to do a job is denied employment because of the lack of a degree or recognition from a certifying agency. According to conflict theorists, credentialism can be used to inhibit disadvantaged or lower classes from attaining better paying jobs because they have been unable to attain a required level of education whether or not that person has the knowledge, skills, and abilities necessary to do the job. In other words, credentialism allows employers and other individuals and groups higher in the social order to legally discriminate against lower classes and disadvantaged individuals on the basis of credentialism that are not directly related to a job or other position of higher social status.

Applications

The Work of Samuel Bowles & Herbert Gintis

Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions of Economic Life by Bowles and Gintis (1976) is arguably one of the landmark works analyzing education from a conflict perspective. Written about the American educational system, the main thesis of the book is that the evolution of the American educational system cannot be understood without a concomitant understanding of the American economic and social structure. Because of this assumption, the authors contend that educational reform cannot succeed without concomitant economic reform. Among the criticisms leveled at the American educational system by the authors are that the school system reinforces and legitimizes economic inequality within society. As a result, according to the authors, the American educational system severely limits the ability of students to develop to their full potential. This is further connected to problems within the American economic system. Therefore, the authors argue, the capitalist economy of America must be radically modified so that there can be an economic democracy within the workplace. Although some would interpret the authors' criticisms as a cry for free schools (which emphasize self-reliance and personal development, along with information acquisition and skill building in a non-hierarchical or non-institutional setting) and educational liberation, the authors believe such programs on their own will only produce unhappy workers rather than reform the educational system. In response to the free school approach, the authors reply that educational systems cannot be considered to be repressive simply because they force children to do things that they would rather not be doing or impose discipline. Rather than arguing that schools should be eliminated as a method of inculcating social control, the authors argue that the capitalist economy should be recreated to be just and humane so that the end product of the socialization process is desirable.

The Legitimization of Inequality

Much of Bowles and Gintis' analysis of the American educational system focuses on their view that schools are agents that reproduce and reinforce the inequalities inherent in capitalism and the concomitant social stratification. In particular, they believe that groups of students, who are sorted to a great extent on the basis of race and class, receive different treatment in the education system. This differential treatment results not only in different cognitive outcomes (i.e., different levels of academic achievement and types of skills acquired), but in different types of social learning as well, including different attitudes toward institutional structures, self-perception, and expected roles in adult society. These differences in both academic and social learning result in a situation that helps the capitalist economy (and its putative unequal and undemocratic structures) continue. Bowles and Gintis refer to this cycle as the legitimization of inequality. Through this process, the authors posit that students come to accept the unequal nature of social stratification as being a natural phenomenon. As a result, according to this theory, children from the upper classes come to see the perquisites of their social position as being theirs by right while children from the lower classes come to see the limits on their own potential place in society as right and acceptable.

The Schools' Role

There are two components to this view of the role of schools in socializing children. First, children from all classes within society learn the attitudes that the authors see as being necessary for the maintenance of the hierarchical and authoritarian structure of the capitalist society. Second, because of the differences in what and how students are taught within the educational system, students are differentially socialized to take their expected role within adult society. In addition, because of the socializing nature of the educational system, students coming from all levels within society come to see the hierarchical nature of society as being both natural and acceptable.

According to Bowles and Gintis, educational systems socialize children differently and in such a way as to reinforce the characteristics and expectations of their respective social classes. This is done in order to prepare the students for the occupations in which they will engage once they join adult society. By doing so, however, Bowles and Gintis posit that schools legitimize the inequalities of the social hierarchy of capitalism by rewarding those who succeed. In this way, children learn at an early age that there are different levels within society and that this is a natural state of affairs. By giving different treatment to different students, therefore, this theory posits that educational systems either reinforce or modify the self concepts and aspiration of students so that students at the top of the hierarchy envision elite or powerful positions in their futures while those at the bottom of the hierarchy envision themselves in lower class roles.

In their original book, Bowles and Gintis presented little empirical evidence of actual classroom differences that supported their hypothesis regarding differences in school social relationship being related to different attitudes for students from different social classes. Since that time, however, research has been done in this area and has partially confirmed Bowles and Gintis' hypothesis. It is important to note that much of this research is also open to other interpretations.

Conclusion

Conflict theorists view educational systems as tools of society. In particular, educational systems are seen as integral to the reproduction and reinforcement of the hierarchical nature of capitalist societies and maintain the domination of society's elite classes. According to the conflict perspective, this is done by subtly teaching subordinate groups that they are inferior, reinforcing existing class inequality within the social stratification, and discouraging alternative societal paradigms.

On the one hand, it can be argued that the conflict perspective of education is based on assumptions that capitalism and social stratification are inherently bad and need to be eliminated. When theories are devised or research conducted with such preconceived notions, the results often are better reflections of the authors' preconceptions than of reality. On the other hand, it can also be argued that there is at least a grain of truth in the conflict perspective of education. Schools serve not only to impart knowledge and teach skills, but also to socialize students so that they can become productive members of adult society. In some ways, it can even be argued that this is an essential role of school systems. Research has also shown that the expectations of teachers affect the performance levels of students despite their innate capabilities, which supports the conflict view.

A problem arises, however, when value judgments are made as to whether or not the socialization process and what it is supporting is good or bad. Such value judgments are more appropriate to philosophy, not to a social science that claims to be objective. In addition, conflict theorists tend to emphasize the disintegrative aspects of education rather than its unifying potential. This, too, makes for a short-sighted view that does not adequately or accurately describe the entirety of the educational system.

Terms & Concepts

Capitalism: An economic system in which the means of production and distribution are privately owned (i.e., not owned by the government or state) either individually or corporately (i.e., by a group of individuals) and operated for profit. In capitalism, investments, distribution, income, production, and pricing are determined by a free market economy.

Class: A group of people or stratum within society that shares a similar level of wealth and income and that have access to the same resources, power, and perceived social worth. Social class is the stratum of the group within the society (See also: social stratification).

Conflict Perspective: An approach to analyzing social behavior that is based on the assumption that social behavior is best explained and understood in terms of conflict or tension between competing groups.

Correspondence Principle: The tendency of schools to promote the values expected of individuals within each social class in order to prepare students for the types of jobs that members of that class typically hold within society. The term "correspondence principle" was coined by conflict theorists Bowles and Gintis.

Credentialism: The requirement for educational credentials for their own sake as a prerequisite for employment or for conferring social status rather than an objective emphasis on the qualifications, skills, or abilities of the person.

Education: From a sociological perspective, education is a formal learning process in which some individuals take on the social role of teacher and others take on the social role of student.

Functionalism: A theoretical framework used in sociology that attempts to explain the nature of social order and the relationship between the various parts (structures) in society and their contribution to the stability of the society by examining the functionality of each to determine how it contributes to the stability of society as a whole. Also referred to as structural functionalism.

Hidden Curriculum: The standards of proper behavior for a society or culture that are taught within the school system. The hidden curriculum is not part of the articulated curricula for schools, but is taught subtly through the reinforcement of behavior and attitudes that are deemed appropriate by the society or culture.

Social Stratification: A relatively fixed hierarchical organization of a society in which entire subgroups are ranked according to social class. These divisions are marked by differences in economic rewards and power within the society and different access to resources, power, and perceived social worth. Social stratification is a system of structured social inequality.

Society: A distinct group of people who live within the same territory, share a common culture and way of life, and are relatively independent from people outside the group. Society includes systems of social interactions that govern both culture and social organization.

Socioeconomic Status (SES): The position of an individual or group on the two vectors of social and economic status and their combination. Factors contributing to socioeconomic status include (but are not limited to) income, type and prestige of occupation, place of residence, and educational attainment.

Status: A socially established position within a society or other social structure that carries with it a recognized level of prestige.

Tracking: The educational practice of placing students into different curriculum groups based on achievement or aptitude test scores, prior performance, or other criteria. For example, students may be placed in a "gifted" track, a "remedial" track, or placed with the main body of students for that class or grade.

Bibliography

Andersen, M. L. & Taylor, H. F. (2002). Sociology: Understanding a diverse society . Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning.

Bills, D. B., & Brown, D. K. (2011). New directions in educational credentialism. Research In Social Stratification & Mobility, 29, 1–4.Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60439373

Field, A. J. (1977). Schooling in capitalist America: Educational reform and the contractions of economic life. Journal of Human Resources, 12 , 275-277. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6566478&site=ehost-live

Kauppinen, I. (2013). Academic capitalism and the informational fraction of the transnational capitalist class. Globalisation, Societies & Education, 11, 1–22. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=85879337

Oakes, J. (1982). Classroom social relationships: Exploring the Bowles and Gintis hypothesis. Sociology of Education, 55 , 197-212. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=12578481&site=ehost-live

Osteen, P. J. (2011). Motivations, Values, And Conflict Resolution: Students’ Integration Of Personal And Professional Identities. Journal Of Social Work Education, 47, 423–44. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=67042037

Schaefer, R. T. (2002). Sociology: A brief introduction (4th ed.). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Suggested Reading

Bowles, S. & Gintis, H. (2002). Schooling in Capitalist America revisited. Sociology of Education, 75 , 1-18. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=6313794&site=ehost-live

‗‗‗‗‗. (2003). Schooling in Capitalist America twenty-five years later. Sociological Forum, 18 , 343-348. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=10363449&site=ehost-live

Cole, M. (1983). Contradictions in the educational theory of Gintis and Bowles. Sociological Review, 31 , 471-488. Retrieved June 10, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=5467194&site=ehost-live

Reisch, M., & Staller, K. M. (2011). Teaching Social Welfare History and Social Welfare Policy From a Conflict Perspective. Journal Of Teaching In Social Work, 31, 131–44. Retrieved October 25, 2013 from EBSCO Online Database SocINDEX with Full Text. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=sih&AN=60294330

Swartz, D. L. (2003). From correspondence to contradiction and change: Schooling in Capitalist America revisited. Sociological Forum, 18 , 167-186. Retrieved June 11, 2008, from EBSCO Online Database Academic Search Premier. http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=aph&AN=9578140&site=ehost-live