Ch 8: Education, Class, & Social Inequality
Bourdieu’s concepts of habitus, the function of educational systems, and the influence of agency in achieving academic success have increased my understanding of why some of our students fail to experience success in U.S. public school systems. In addition, through wrestling with Bourdieu’s various theories, I feel better equipped to enter discussion surrounding both best educational practices, policy-making, and hidden curricula within education.
The notion of a hidden curriculum is not a new one, by any stretch of the imagination. However, it has never been illuminated for me quite to the extent that it is in Schwartz does in "interpreting" Bourdieu. My concept of a hidden curriculum is one that promotes an agenda which maintains the status quo with respect to dominant culture versus marginalized groups (be it related to gender, sexual orientation, ethnicity, etc).
Prior to reading Bourdieu, I hadn't addressed the differences between cultural capital and economic captial, and their roles in determining an individual's "place" in our school systems, much less in society. (Of course Bourdieu's focus is on education in France, but much of his findings can be applied to situations in the United States.) When curriculum fails to provide diverse material on a variety of levels, and teachers lack cultural responsiveness, there is a greater likelihood that only those whose cultures and norm are included in curricula, will benefit from having the opportunity to experience the greatest levels of success. If students' dispositions are such that they excel in environments that differ from the traditional classroom, and they are not part of dominant group, then surely they are set up to fail from the onset of their education. So, why have our public school systems not undergone earth-shattering transformations so that all have not only the opportunity to succeed, but successful outcomes?
According to Bourdieu, the educational system is the principal institution controlling the allocation of status and privilege in contemporary societies. (189) This is a statement with which I strongly agree. Of course families have a great influence over children, yet individuals can—to an extent—change their status if they are able to successfully navigate through their educational institution. This is surely easier said than done. For later discussion…are they changing their stratification or position, or both?
One of the key questions around Bourdieu’s work is how inequalities of privilege and power persist inter-generationally without conscious recognition and public resistance. In my teaching experiences I have seen this, and the exact opposite. I've worked in communities where education is viewed as a ticket to success, a savior from poverty and a life of struggle. However, I've also observed the flip side, where education is viewed as a requirement through age sixteen, and nothing more. Bourdieu postulates that in order to answer the question of how privilege and power persist inter-generationally, we must explore how cultural resources—educational credentials, selection mechanisms, and cognitive classifications—can be used by individuals and groups to perpetuate their position of power and privilege. (189)
According to Bourdieu, the education system performs three functions: 1) conserving, inculcating, and consecrating a cultural heritage (internal and most essential function) 2) reproducing social relations (external-reinforces unequal distribution of cultural capital), and 3) social reproduction (legitimates the cultural heritage it transmits). (190-191) This is clearly the case in the school systems for which I have worked. For the most part, many teachers are not learned (nor do they care to learn) about cultures other than "mainstream" culture. That which they do know, or care to focus on, is usually not positive--certainly not capital (neither economic, nor cultural), but rather deficiencies attributed to various non-dominant groups. A constant refrain I would hear from students referring to their teachers/curriculum was something along the lines of "What does this have to do with me? Why do I need to know this? What do you (addressed to a teacher) know about me?" In truth, if we can apply Bourdieu's philosophy to our U.S. school systems--and I think we can--does it surprise anyone that students ask these questions? I should think not.
Similarly: (199) Bourdieu argues that school systems maintain unequal social systems by privileging certain cultural heritages and penalizing others. The thoughts of Durkheim and Maus (1963) regarding the correlation between institutional structures and cognitive dispositions are applicable here, as well. (202)
Bourdieu addresses the way(s) in which internal processes of selection and instruction, school culture, and tracking structure reinforce power relations. Once again, an appropriate description of what I have observed in the schools in which I have worked. You can call this a self-fulfilling prophecy. The message students receive is that they're not worth a darn, they can't succeed, and will never amount to much. With this message coming from those in "power"--teachers, administrators--what is a student left to think (especially where there is little social, emotional, and/or academic support at home). So, the child lives up--or down--to the expectations expressed, and sets herself up for failure. Of course this isn't every case, but it happens all of the time.
(192) Distribution of economic capital (wealth, income, property) and cultural capital (knowledge, culture, educational credentials) are the two competing principles of social hierarchy that shape the struggle for power.
(193) Bourdieu’s observations on the effect that the type and prestige of a school can have for one exploring career options. I'm aware of the impact of one's schooling. I happened to attend an undergraduate institution with a great academic reputation (at least known by those in Minnesota, and others working in education). When I speak of my school, or have interviewed for jobs, people are usually quiet impressed. Whether they should be or not is up for debate, but what holds true is that this happens.
(196) There is a fundamental paradox between two developments in French Higher Education: the increase in options in higher education (broader range of educational opportunities offered), and a reinforcement of class-based social stratification within the higher education system.
I have witnessed something similar in the public schools in which I have worked. There are a greater range of electives for those students in the upper echelons of academia (within a school), while the “regular track” students are relegated to taking the required courses, rarely having the opportunity to explore more diverse courses. In this way, the systems in which I have worked parallel those which Bourdieu mentions. The opportunities to attain greater cultural capital do not exist for all consumers. As Bauman might chime in, those who do not take part in the greater options are “collateral casualties,” simply left in the wake of all of the action.
(195) Educational elite is divided into those who have greater economic capital and those who have greater cultural capital. I have not given much thought to this dichotomy. As I watched a movie with my kids (or should I say as I watch this movie every other day), I had an "ah-ha" moment. The family has a rags to riches story--the riches gained in illegal car sales--yet only ever possess economic capital. Education is abhorred, reading is despised, and television a valued member of the family. This family will never possess cultural capital. It is not part of its habitus (with the exception of the character for whom the movie is named, "Matilda"). Not only is it not part of each family member's habitus, but there is no intervention, which might influence the habitus.
(197 ) Bourdieu—through the concept of habitus-- stresses that educational choices are dispositions rather than conscious, rational calculations. Coupled with the belief that whether a person stays in school or drops out is primarily determined by their “practical expectations” of the likelihood that they will succeed academically, could be cause for great joy, or frustration, depending on the agenda of the educator. These views reinforce the notion that teachers must develop their students’ potential, and create many positive opportunities for achieving success. If students are immersed in a sea of limitations, they will rise—or sink—as far as their internalized self-images will permit.
Bourdieu’s demonstration of how individuals “self-select” their educational selection should be cause concern among those working with youth who do not have the advantage knowing what measures to take to succeed academically (and later, professionally). As mentioned earlier in the book, an individual’s habitus has the potential to be reformed/expanded, however not without a great investment of energy and time.
(202) Student performance and achievement can be seen as the outcome of a complex interplay of expectations, cultural capital, and the degree of selection. I am concerned with the role of secondary teachers in the U.S. As opposed to Bourdieu’s depiction of professors in higher education, k-12 teachers should be encouraged to play more of a supportive role in their students’ academic lives, while simultaneously addressing their students’ social-emotional well-being.
(205) The system of tracking in U.S. schools may often be questioned, but not always by the actors which it directly effects. As Bourdieu mentions, through socialization, actors come to believe they are where they are supposed to be, in the name of education. In effect their placements within the school setting reflect their position within society, and for the most part, meet little resistance.
I am not surprised by this at all. If your "place" in society has been the "place" for your family members for generations, what would incite you to suddenly question it or raise cain? Before reading Bourdieu I did wonder why many of my classmates, and later students, didn't have parents/family members who advocated more on their behalf. I thought perhaps they didn't care, or didn't have the time. Though plausible, their absence was probably a result of their socialization. They didn't know what they didn't know. Not to be misunderstood, they knew the school system may not have always provided equal opportunities, but they didn't necessarily know that this was the plan--or hidden agenda.
(206) Bourdieu believes the French higher education system operates in an autonomous fashion to the extent that it carries out its “external function of social conservation.” It does so by internally generating knowledge and professional and organizational interests (which do not necessarily rely on labor-market demands or dominant-class interests.
(207) "Relative autonomy” addresses the relationship of education to class structure. Education, here, is viewed as a transmitter of social inequality. It is a concept in which the educational system has the capacity to undermine government instituted reforms.
(208) Schwartz notes the difference in the French and U.S. educational systems with respect to autonomy. Institutions in the U.S. are more likely subject to external constraints.
Schwartz mentions that school systems in the U.S. operate with a different level of autonomy, considering funding and other factors. NCLB is a huge factor. It has left schools with relatively little autonomy, while simlutaneously not yielding the results for which it was created. U.S. schools may have some autonomy, but nothing which would enable them to "undermine government instituted reforms.
(209) Capital investment strategies come in three forms. These can likely be compared to strategies that Bauman’s consumers might employ. Their actions are determined by their needs. Different classes pursue different kind of educational investments: 1) Middle class—usually low in cultural capital-demand curriculum & instruction needed to be successful in the professional job market. 2) Intellectual elite work to protect cultural capital from devaluation, resisting demands of the middle class for education to meet the changing skill needs of the labor market. 3) Big business leaders “convert” economic capital to cultural capital in the form of academic degrees.(213) Bourdieu illustrates three situations in which habitus and filed intersect, thereby creating a complete theory of action. 1) Situations in which the dispositions of habitus were first internalized, habitus tends to produce practices corresponding to existing structures; social reproduction occurs. 2) Situations where opportunities and constraints of fields change gradually, habitus tends to adapt, even with some “mismatch.” 3) When discrepancies between new situations and those in which habitus was formed are slight, gradual modifications of structures occur.
This reinforces my belief that educators can make a difference--even if it means bucking the system, because of the school system in which you work. It confirms that people can be influences for the better, even if it is a slow process.
