Karl Marx's Educational Theory

Analyst: M. L. Fulano de T.

RETURN
edited 8/18/11

1. Theory of Value: What knowledge and skills are worthwhile learning? What are
the goals of education?

Combination of education with industrial production (CM 75) We still had no idea
how much education ... had yet to be done to make the proletariat capable of
shattering the bourgeois world. (PCM vii) Transformation of labor into the primary
means of self-realization rather than a curse borne grudgingly. (PCM 22) The same
object appears quite different [and thus its value viewed differently as well] to
members of different classes (PCM 29) The free development of each would be the
condition for the free development of all (PCM 37) People would need a long period
of reeducation under socialism to condition them away from the selfish orientation
produced by capitalism and toward the wider perspective necessary to create
communism. (SGCM 2) In order to live, people must secure food, shelter and
clothing, typically by production (PHP 410) Education is to consist of a many-sided
technical training of youth, so that a many-sided development of capacities might take
place. (CME 190)

2. Theory of Knowledge: What is knowledge? How is it different from belief? What

is a mistake? What is a lie?

Does it require deep intuition to comprehend that man's ideas, views and
conceptions ... in the condition of his material existence? (CM 73) Some knowledge
does not change (i.e. 2+2 = 4), but ideologies or beliefs do. (PCM 29) Basic reality is
material (PHP 410) Values can not be contemplated in isolation from their historical
context. (RKM 3)

3. Theory of Human Nature: What is a human being? How does it differ from other
species? What are the limits of human potential?
In my individual activity I would immediately confirmed and realized my true human
and social nature. (PCM 23) Human existence is ftindamentally dependent upon the
ways in which men and nature interact. (PCM 26) Men are conditioned by the
material world into which they are born. (LKM 2) To Marx, materialism meant the
sum of the natural environment, including social life and human consciousness (PHP
410) That human beings possess minds means only that organic matter has developed
to the point where it is capable of the process of thought. (PHP 410) Mental activity is
a by-product of matter. (PHP 4 10) The human mind is conditioned by the labor
activity of human as social beings (PHP 410)

4. Theory of Learning: What is learning? How are skills and knowledge acquired?

The truth of thought must be demonstrated in practice (HWP 784) Both the knower
and the thing known are in a continual process of mutual adaptation (HVvT 784)

5. Theory of Transmission: Who is to teach? By what methods? What will the

curriculum be?

But, you will say, we destroy the most hallowed of relations when we replace home
education with social. (CM 71) The species-character of the human being is free,
conscious activity (PHP 415) They [The Communists] seek to rescue education from
the influence of the ruling class. (CM 71) Combination of education with industrial
production (CM 75) The ideology best expressing the interests of ruling class always
prevails in a society's morality, legal system, education, politics and economic life.
(PCM 30)

6. Theory of Society: What is society? What institutions are involved in the

educational process?

Free education for all children in public schools. (CM 75) Society is understood in
terms of its mode of production, especially its class structure (PCM 29) Class conflicts
influence the prevailing political institutions (including schools) and ideologies (PCM
29) Society is the result of necessary causation and determinism. (PHP 409) Of
importance is how people are related to each other in the process of production (PHP
411)

7. Theory of Opportunity: Who is to be educated? Who is to be schooled?

Free education for all children in public schools. (CM 75) Demand for universal and
gratuitous education. (PCM 17)
8. Theory of Consensus: Why do people disagree? How is consensus achieved?
Whose opinion takes precedence?

The history of hitherto existing society, is a history of class struggle (CM 55) A fight
which ended each time ... either in a revolutionary re-constitution of society at large,
or in the common ruin of the contending classes (CM 55)

Citations

CM Marx, K. (1988). The Communist Manifesto (A Norton Critical Edition). New

York: W.W. Norton and Co.

PCM Bender, F. (1988). Preface to The Communist Manifesto (A Norton Critical

Edition). New York: W.W. Norton and Co.

PHP Stumpf, S. (1994). Philosophy: History and Problems. New York: McGraw-Hill.

HWP Russell, B. (1945). A History of Western Philosophy. New York: Simon and
Schuster.

LKM Kreis, S. (2000). The Age of Ideologies (2): Reflections on Karl Marx in
Lectures on Modern European Intellectual History. HYPERLINK
"http://www.pagesz.net/~stevek/intellect/lecture22a.html"
www.pagesz.net/~stevek/intellect/lecture22a.html.

SGCM Brians, P. (1995). Study Guide for the Communist Manifesto. HYPERLINK
"http://www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/manifesto.html"
www.wsu.edu:8080/~brians/hum_303/manifesto.html.
http://www.newfoundations.com/GALLERY/Marx.html

The Marxist Perspective on Education

Posted on January 27, 2015 by Karl Thompson

Traditional Marxists see the education system as working in the interests of ruling
class elites. According to the Marxist perspective on education, the system performs
three functions for these elites:
 Reproduces class inequality.

Legitimates class inequality.

It works in the interests of capitalist employers

1. The reproduction of class inequality

In school, the middle classes use their material and cultural capital to ensure that their
children get into the best schools and the top sets. This means that the wealthier pupils
tend to get the best education and then go onto to get middle class jobs. Meanwhile
working class children are more likely to get a poorer standard of education and end
up in working class jobs. In this way class inequality is reproduced

2. The Legitimation of class inequality

Marxists argue that in reality money determines how good an education you get, but
people do not realize this because schools spread the myth of meritocracy in
school we learn that we all have an equal chance to succeed and that our grades
depend on our effort and ability. Thus if we fail, we believe it is our own fault. This
legitimates or justifies the system because we think it is fair when in reality it is not.

3. Teaching the skills future capitalist employers need

In Schooling in Capitalist America (1976) Bowles and Gintis suggest that there is a
correspondence between values learnt at school and the way in which the workplace
operates. The values, they suggested, are taught through the Hidden Curriculum. The
Hidden Curriculum consists of those things that pupils learn through the experience of
attending school rather than the main curriculum subjects taught at the school. So
pupils learn those values that are necessary for them to tow the line in menial manual
jobs, as outlined below

SCHOOL VALUES Corresponds to EXPLOITATIVE LOGIC OF THE

WORKPLACE

Passive subservience (of pupils to teachers) corresponds to Passive subservience of

workers to managers

Acceptance of hierarchy (authority of teachers) corresponds to Authority of managers

Motivation by external rewards (grades not learning) corresponds to being Motivated
by wages not the joy of the job

Evaluations of the Traditional Marxist Perspective on Education

Positive

There is an overwhelming wealth of evidence that schools do reproduce class

inequality because the middle classes do much better in education because
they have more cultural capital (Reay) and because the 1988 Education Act
benefited them (Ball Bowe and Gewirtz)

Conversely, WWC children less likely to go to university because of fear of debt

(Connor et al)

Negative

Henry Giroux, says the theory is too deterministic. He argues that working
class pupils are not entirely molded by the capitalist system, and do not accept
everything that they are taught Paul Willis study of the Lads also suggests
this.

Education can actually harm the Bourgeois many left wing, Marxist activists
are university educated

Neo- Marxism: Paul Willis: Learning to Labour (1977)

Willis research involved visiting one school and observing and interviewing 12
working class rebellious boys about their attitude to school during their last 18 months
at school and during their first few months at work.

Willis argues pupils rebelling are evidence that not all pupils are brainwashed into
being passive, subordinate people as a result of the hidden curriculum.

Willis therefore criticizes Traditional Marxism. He says that pupils are not directly
injected with the values and norms that benefit the ruling class, some actively reject
these. These pupils also realise that they have no real opportunity to succeed in this
system.

BUT, Willis still believes that this counter-school culture still produces workers who
are easily exploited by their future employers:
The Counter School Culture

Willis described the friendship between these 12 boys (or the lads) as a counter-school
culture. Their value system was opposed to that of the school. This value system was
characterised as follows:

1. The lads felt superior to the teachers and other pupils

2. They attached no value to academic work, more to having a laff
3. The objective of school was to miss as many lessons as possible, the reward for this
was status within the group
4. The time they were at school was spent trying to win control over their time and
make it their own.

Attitudes to future work

They looked forward to paid manual work after leaving school and identified
all non-school activities (smoking, going out) with this adult world, and valued
such activities far more than school work.

The lads believed that manual work was proper work, and the type of jobs that
hard working pupils would get were all the same and generally pointless.

Their counter school culture was also strongly sexist.

Evaluations of Willis

Very small sample of only working class white boys

Overly sympathetic with the boys going native?

https://revisesociology.com/2015/01/27/marxist-perspective-education/

Karl Marx is one of the most influential men in modern history. Marx was born in 1818 in
Trier. He studied philosophy and economics in Berlin and after this earned a living as a
journalist. Karl Marx is most famous for The Communist Manifesto which was written in
1848. His real mission in life was to contribute, in one way or another, to the overthrow
of capitalist society and of the state institutions which it had brought into being,
to contribute to the liberation of the modern proletariat, which he was the first to make
conscious of its own position and its needs, conscious of the conditions of its
emancipation. His name will endure through the ages, and so also will his work."
Communism is a political philosophy which argues that men should have equal rights to
wealth.Marxism is a way of understanding and analysing the organisation and structure
of society. It is also a way of understanding how societies develop and change.
 Economic determinism, Marx believed, creates alienation. If a commodity that someone
needs is sold for a good profit, Marx believed that the purchaser is being exploited by
the producer of that commodity. Alienation, Marx believed, leads to a divided society
between the haves and have not. He identified the rich as being the haves and the
poor as being the have not.
Contemporary theories of stratification have been influenced by the work of Marx or
Webber. Marx saw the divisions from the ownership of wealth and ownership of the
means of production whereas Webber placed more emphasis on the property less
class, those who did not have own sufficient property to support themselves without
working. No class stratification system is fixed and static, the distribution of resources
within the class system constantly changes, and the size of the market situation of
occupational groups also alters over time.
There are many disagreements about where the boundaries between the middle and
working class. Manual jobs are usually regarded for the working class, split into
categories of unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled manual work. Non manual worker such
as routine manual jobs such as clerical and secretarial work, andintermediate non
manual includes jobs such as teachers, nurses. The highest class include professionals
such as doctors and accountants.

Sponsored Content
o
Bath and Body Works Favorites |summer 2017 (feat. Bath Fizzy and
Snapchat)YouTube
o
Bras vs. BralettesSloane & Tate
o
Filipino Foodies Are Flocking to This Dream Destination Singapore Tourism Board
Recommended by
From 1911 to 2000 there has been a long term trend for the proportion of non-manual
jobs to increase and manual jobs to decrease. In 2000 49% of all workers had manual
jobs whereas in 1911 79% were in manual employment. There have been marked
increases in professional, managerial and routine non-manual work. This shift has been
caused due to the decline of manufacturing and the growth of services. Coalmining,
steel manufacture, shipbuilding and dock work declined, partly due to new technology
has increased productivity so that fewer workers are needed to produce the same
amount of goods. Also Britain has lost out in competition with business in lower wage
economies such as Latin America, Easterner European and Far East. The old working
class employed in coalmining etc now are employed in supermarkets, security firms,
contract cleaners and fast foods the new working class (Roberts 2001).
The service sector has grown considerably due to the recent growth in hotels, catering
and retailing. The public sector grew from 1940s-1970s but came to a halt and financial
and business services grew rapidly from 1960s-80s but the hit of computer technology
reduce the work force needed. According to Marx there are two classes Bourgeoisie
and Proletariat. Ones class is dependent upon the ownership or non-ownership of the
Means of Production.
In 1911 the richest 5% of the country owned 87% of the countries personal wealth. By
1930 this had decreased slightly to 84% then by 1954 had decreased even more to
71%. This was a slight increase by 1960 with the richest 5% of the country 75% of the
countries personal wealth. In 1911 the richest 1% owned 69% of the countries personal
wealth. By 1936 this had gone down to 56% then by 1960 this had decreased to 42% of
the countries personal wealth.
Successive governments in Britain have made much less attempt to tax wealth than
income. Before 1974 the main tax on wealth was estate duty, paid on the estate of
someone who had died. In 1974 the labour government introduced capital transfer tax,
which taxed certain gifts given by people who were alive. In 1981 the Conservative
government abolished capital transfer tax and replaced it with inheritance tax. The
longer people survived after giving assets to someone, the less tax they paid on the gift.
Does class impact education and a childs chance of success in 2011? Research by the
BBC found that:
Children from working class backgrounds are more likely to be placed into a lower set
due to their class rather than their educational achievement.
A test at 168 schools suggested that middle class pupils were more likely to be placed
into higher sets regardless of their ability. 10,000 pupils were studied, half of which were
placed into sets according to their ability. The other half was placed into sets according
to their social class or ethnicity. This means that pupil is more likely to obtain lower
GCSE results since those in the lower sets are usually entered for a lower exam
paper. A spokesman for the Department for Children, Schools and Families said the
study it commissioned had only looked at a small number of schools and was not
representative of the national picture. Professor Judy Sebba who ran the experiment
said that schools were likely to have a middle class culture as an institution. She
added that Language and speech as well as parental pressure were also
factors. Middle class parents are thought to understand the schooling system better
than lower class parents and are more likely to push for their child to enter higher sets.
https://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/karl-marx-and-education/

Karl Marx and education

Karl Marx and education. What significance does Marx
have for educators and animateurs today? An
introduction and assessment by Barry Burke.
contents: introduction life Karl Marx as a thinker Karl Marx and the class
struggle the communist manifesto Karl Marxs relevance to knowledge and
education further reading links how to cite this article
Karl Marx never wrote anything directly on education yet his influence on
writers, academics, intellectuals and educators who came after him has been
profound. The power of his ideas has changed the way we look at the world.
Whether you accept his analysis of society or whether you oppose it, he cannot be
ignored. As Karl Popper, a fierce opponent of Marxism, has claimed all modern
writers are indebted to Marx, even if they do not know it.
Life
Karl Marx was born in Trier on May 5, 1818. He studied at the universities of
Bonn, Berlin, and Jena. His early writings for, and editorship of, the Cologne
newspaper Rheinische Zeitung brought him quickly into conflict with the
government. He was critical of social conditions and existing political
arrangements. In 1843 after only a year in post, Marx was compelled to resign as
editor. Soon afterwards the paper was also forced to stop publication. Marx then
went to Paris (where he first met Engels). His radicalism had come to be
recognizably communistic. His revolutionary analysis and activity led to him
being ordered to leave Paris in 1845. Karl Marx went onto settle in Brussels and
began to organize Communist Correspondence Committees in a number of
European cities. This led to the organizing of the Communist League (and the
writing of the Communist Manifesto with Engels) (see below). With the unrest
and revolutionary activity of 1848, Marx was again forced to leave a country. He
returned to Paris and then to the Rhineland. In Cologne he set up and edited
the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and continued organizing. In 1849 Marx was
arrested and tried on a charge of incitement to armed insurrection. He got off,
but was expelled from Germany.
Karl Marx spent the remainer of his life in England, arriving in London in 1849
(see Karl Marx in Soho). His most productive years were spent in the Reading
Room of the British Museum where much of his research and writing took place.
He wrote a great deal although hardly any of it was published in English until
after his death in 1883.

Karl Marx as a thinker

Marxs intellectual output is difficult to categorize for whilst his major work, Das
Kapital, translated into English as Capital, is a work of economics, he is more
popularly recognised as a social scientist and a political philosopher. As C.Wright
Mills has explained: as with most complicated thinkers, there is no one Marx.
The various presentations of his work which we can construct from his books,
pamphlets, articles, letters written at different times in his own development,
depend upon our point of interest ; every student must earn his own Marx. So
today, we have Marxist anthropology, Marxist literary criticism, Marxist
aesthetics, Marxist pedagogy, Marxist cultural studies, Marxist sociology etc. His
intellectual output lasted from the early 1840s to the early l880s and over that
long period of 40 years produced a number of works that have enriched the
thinking of those who came after him.
There are many who see different stages in the thinking of Karl Marx. His earlier
works are sometimes referred to as showing a humanistic Marx, a philosophical
Marx who was concerned with the role of the individual, with what human beings
are actually like, with the relationship between consciousness and existence. The
later Marx, we are told, wrote as a social scientist, a political economist who was
more concerned with social structure than with individuals. It is possible to read
this into the work of Karl Marx but it is also possible to see a basic thread going
right through all his work. One of the reasons for this is that one of his major
works, the Grundrisse or Outlines, described by David McLellan, Marxs
biographer as the most fundamental of all Marxs writings was not published in
English until the 1970s. It is quite easy, therefore, to see why there are different
perspectives on Karl Marx, why my Marx can be different from your Marx.

Karl Marx on the class struggle

So what was it that made Karl Marx so important? At the cornerstone of his
thinking is the concept of the class struggle. He was not unique in discovering the
existence of classes. Others had done this before him. What Marx did that was
new was to recognize that the existence of classes was bound up with particular
modes of production or economic structure and that the proletariat, the new
working class that Capitalism had created, had a historical potential leading to
the abolition of all classes and to the creation of a classless society. He
maintained that the history of all existing society is a history of class struggle.
Each society, whether it was tribal, feudal or capitalist was characterized by the
way its individuals produced their means of subsistence, their material means of
life, how they went about producing the goods and services they needed to live.
Each society created a ruling class and a subordinate class as a result of their
mode of production or economy. By their very nature the relationship between
these two was antagonistic. Marx referred to this as the relations of production.
Their interests were not the same. The feudal economy was characterized by the
existence of a small group of lords and barons that later developed into a landed
aristocracy and a large group of landless peasants. The capitalist economy that
superseded it was characterized by a small group of property owners who owned
the means of production i.e. the factories, the mines and the mills and all the
machinery within them. This group was also referred to as the bourgeoisie or
capitalist class. Alongside them was a large and growing working class. He saw
the emergence of this new propertyless working class as the agent of its own self
emancipation. It was precisely the working class, created and organized into
industrial armies, that would destroy its creator and usher in a new society free
from exploitation and oppression. What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces,
above all, is its own grave-diggers.

The Communist Manifesto

These ideas first saw the light of day as an integrated whole in theCommunist
Manifesto which Marx wrote with his compatriot Frederick Engels in 1847/8.
The Manifesto begins with a glowing tribute to the historical and revolutionary
role of the bourgeoisie. It points out how the bourgeoisie had totally altered the
face of the earth as it revolutionized the means of production, constantly
expanded the market for its products, created towns and cities, moved vast
populations from rural occupations into factories and centralized political
administration. Karl Marx sums up the massive achievements of the bourgeoisie
by declaring that during its rule of scarce one hundred years (it) has created
more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding
generations together. Subjection of Natures forces to Man, machinery,
application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways,
electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of
rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground what earlier century had
even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social
labour?. However, the creation of these productive forces had the effect, not of
improving the lot of society, but of periodically creating a situation of crisis.
Commercial crises as a result of over-production occurred more and more
frequently as the productive forces were held back by the bourgeois organization
of production and exchange.

But along with the development of the bourgeoisie who own the means of
production we find the development of the proletariat the propertyless working
class. With the evolution of modern industry, Marx pointed out that workmen
became factory fodder, appendages to machines. Men were crowded into
factories with army-like discipline, constantly watched by overseers and at the
whim of individual manufacturers. Increasing competition and commercial crises
led to fluctuating wages whilst technological improvement led to a livelihood that
was increasingly precarious. The result was a growth in the number of battles
between individual workmen and individual employers whilst collisions took on
more and more the character of collisions between two classes. Marx and
Engels characterize the growth of the working class as a more or less veiled civil
war raging within existing society but unlike previous historical movements
which were minority movements, the working class movement is the self-
conscious independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the
immense majority. The conclusion they drew from this was that the overthrow of
bourgeois supremacy and a victory for the working class would not, therefore,
produce another minority ruling class but in place of the old bourgeois society,
with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the
free development of each is the condition of the free development of all.

The Communist Manifesto contains within it, the basic political theory of
Marxism a theory that Marx was to unfold, reshape and develop for the rest of
his life. Without doubt, the Manifesto is sketchy and over-simplistic but its
general principles were never repudiated by Marx although those parts that had
become antiquated he was only too ready to reject or modify.
For instance, the two-class model which has always been associated with Marx
was never an accurate picture of his theory. Marx later made it quite clear that
within the bourgeoisie, there were a whole number of factions existing based on
different types of property such as finance, industry, land and commerce. He was
aware of the growth of the middle classes, situated midway between the workers
on the one side and the capitalists and landowners on the other. He regarded
them as resting with all their weight upon the working class and at the same time
increasing the security and power of the upper class. At the other end of the
spectrum, he explains the existence of different strata of the working class such as
the nomad population moving around the country, the paupers, the unemployed
or industrial reserve army and what has become known as the aristocracy of
labour, the skilled artisans. All of these strata made up a working class created by
capitalist accumulation.

However, why is it that Marx felt that the existence of classes meant that the
relationship between them was one of exploitation? In feudal societies,
exploitation often took the form of the direct transfer of produce from the
peasantry to the aristocracy. Serfs were compelled to give a certain proportion of
their production to their aristocratic masters, or had to work for a number of days
each month in the lords fields to produce crops consumed by the lord and his
retinue. In capitalist societies, the source of exploitation is less obvious, and Marx
devoted much attention to trying to clarify its nature. In the course of the working
day, Marx reasoned, workers produce more than is actually needed by employers
to repay the cost of hiring them. This surplus value, as he called it, is the source of
profit, which capitalists were able to put to their own use. For instance, a group of
workers in a widget factory might produce a hundred widgets a day. Selling half
of them provides enough income for the manufacturer to pay the workers wages.
income from the sale of the other half is then taken for profit. Marx was struck by
the enormous inequalities this system of production created. With the
development of modern industry, wealth was created on a scale never before
imagined but the workers who produced that wealth had little access to it. They
remained relatively poor while the wealth accumulated by the propertied class
grew out of all proportion. In addition, the nature of the work became
increasingly dull, monotonous and physically wearing to the workforce who
became increasingly alienated from both the products they were creating, from
their own individuality and from each other as human beings.

Karl Marxs relevance to knowledge and education

Karl Marx made it clear that life is not determined by consciousness, but
consciousness by life and what he meant by life was actual living everyday
material activity. Human thought or consciousness was rooted in human activity
not the other way round as a number of philosophers felt at the time. What this
meant was the way we went about our business, the way we were organized in our
daily life was reflected in the way we thought about things and the sort of world
we created. The institutions we built, the philosophies we adhered to, the
prevailing ideas of the time, the culture of society, were all determined to some
extent or another by the economic structure of society. This did not mean that
they were totally determined but were quite clearly a spin-off from the economic
base of society. The political system, the legal system, the family, the press, the
education system were all rooted, in the final analysis, to the class nature of
society, which in turn was a reflection of the economic base. Marx maintained
that the economic base or infrastructure generated or had built upon it a
superstructure that kept it functioning. The education system, as part of the
superstructure, therefore, was a reflection of the economic base and served to
reproduce it. This did not mean that education and teaching was a sinister plot by
the ruling class to ensure that it kept its privileges and its domination over the
rest of the population. There were no conspirators hatching devious schemes. It
simply meant that the institutions of society, like education, were reflections of
the world created by human activity and that ideas arose from and reflected the
material conditions and circumstances in which they were generated.

This relationship between base and superstructure has been the subject of fierce
debate between Marxists for many years. To what extent is the superstructure
determined by the economic base? How much of a reflection is it? Do the
institutions that make up the superstructure have any autonomy at all? If they are
not autonomous, can we talk about relative autonomy when we speak about the
institutions of society? There have been furious debates on the subject and whole
forests have been decimated as a result of the need to publish contributions to the
debate.

I now want to turn to Marxs contribution to the theory of knowledge and to the
problem of ideology. In his book, The German Ideology, Marx maintained that
the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time its
dominant intellectual force. What he meant by that is that the individuals who
make up the ruling class of any age determine the agenda. They rule as thinkers,
as producers of ideas that get noticed. They control what goes by the name
common sense. Ideas that are taken as natural, as part of human nature, as
universal concepts are given a veneer of neutrality when, in fact, they are part of
the superstructure of a class-ridden society. Marx explained that each new class
which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it, is compelled, simply in
order to achieve its aims, to represent its interest as the common interest of all
members of society i.e. ..to give its ideas the form of universality and to represent
them as the only rational and universally valid ones. Ideas become presented as
if they are universal, neutral, common sense. However, more subtly, we find
concepts such as freedom, democracy, liberty or phrases such as a fair days work
for a fair days pay being banded around by opinion makers as if they were not
contentious. They are, in Marxist terms, ideological constructs, in so far as they
are ideas serving as weapons for social interests. They are put forward for people
to accept in order to prop up the system.
What Marx and Marxists would say is that ideas are not neutral. They are
determined by the existing relations of production, by the economic structure of
society. Ideas change according to the interests of the dominant class in
society. Antonio Gramsci coined the phrase ideological hegemony to describe
the influence the ruling class has over what counts as knowledge. For Marxists,
this hegemony is exercised through institutions such as education, or the media,
which the Marxist philosopher and sociologist, Louis Althusser referred to as
being part of what he called the Ideological State Apparatus. The important thing
to note about this is that it is not to be regarded as part of a conspiracy by the
ruling class. It is a natural effect of the way in which what we count as knowledge
is socially constructed. The ideology of democracy and liberty, beliefs about
freedom of the individual and competition are generated historically by the mode
of production through the agency of the dominant class. They are not neutral
ideas serving the common good but ruling class ideas accepted by everyone as if
they were for the common good.

This brings us back to the notion of education as part of the super-structural

support for the economic status quo. If this is the case, there are a number of
questions that need to be asked. The first is can society be changed by education?
If not, why not? Secondly, can education be changed and if so, how?

http://infed.org/mobi/karl-marx-and-education/

Karl Marx's theoretical

contributions to radical adult
education
Paula Allman and John Wallis, University of
Nottingham
Abstract

This paper is a highly condensed version of work in progress by the

authors on the theoretical contributions of Karl Marx. The radical
education context which necessitated a detailed study of Marx is
described very briefly. The principal focus of the paper is the
explication of three theoretical components, viz. consciousness,
ideology and the dialectic, and their inter-relatedness. It is argued
that these are essential to the realisation of radical adult education
and that they have important implications for an accurate reading
and understanding of Marx's economic writings.

In this paper 'radical adult education' will be used in a very precise

way. Depending on specific social and historical circumstances, it is
either aimed at enabling people to collectively prepare themselves
to undertake revolutionary change which would set in motion the
'process of socialism', or it is aimed at enabling people already in
that process to bring about a classless, and non-antagonistic, social
formation1. Therefore it could be considered education 'for
socialism'; education which prepares people for a transitional phase
of human history as well as education appropriate to that phase.
Throughout the 20th century a limited number of British adult
educators have insisted that Marx's 'theory' must be the essential
component of the curriculum for working class education. However
the only aspect of his theory which was deemed important was his
economic theory of the inner mechanism of capitalism. It is our
contention that Marx's economic theory cannot be understood
unless other substantive elements of his work are considered. Far
worse, Marx's economic theory in isolation becomes a de-
historicised body of content rather than what it actually is, viz. The
most essential analytical tool for understanding our present
conditions. We would suggest that there are three theoretical
components in Marx's writings which must be understood to fully
understand and use his economic theory. Furthermore, without these
three theoretical components, education for socialism will never be
realised. The three components are his 'theory of consciousness', his
'theory of ideology' and his 'theory of the dialectic'. They are all
related, and they are all developed in an integrated manner
throughout most of his writings.

Our claim as to the essentiality of these 'theories' stems from the

lessons we have learned from our attempts to engage in radical
educational work with other adults. Three years ago we began
working together within what was intended to be a Freirean
approach to education. This had been preceded by undertaking a
fairly exhaustive study of Paulo Freire's educational work and his
philosophy of education2. Since the context within which his ideas
had developed varied considerably from our own, we attempted to
identify the assumptions which underpinned his approach and its
generalisable features; and then we sought to rework them into our
own educational and societal context. We won't go into this in detail
here; one of us has written about it elsewhere3. There are two
features of the approach, however, which must be pointed out
because it was our struggle to apply these that led us to the
essential theories which are the focus of this paper.

A Freirean approach to learning rests upon the transformation of the

relations that exist in other forms of education. The transformation
of the student-teacher relation is well known but frequently
misunderstood. Teachers do not cease being teachers and learners
do not cease being learners; they do, however, stop being either the
'exclusive' teacher or the 'exclusive' learners4. Instead a new
relationship is as formed between teacher-learners and learner-
teacher. However that transformation is absolutely impossible, at
least in the way Freire intends, until everyone in the learning
situation transforms their relation to knowledge5. This involves a
new theory of knowledge or an epistemological shift. It was this
epistemological transformation which we found initially to be
difficult for both ourselves and our co-learners. Only slowly did we
come to understand that we would need additional theoretical
insights to enable these shifts to take place. In fact it was the pursuit
of another question which was to lead us into the realm of theory we
needed.

It is not surprising that we, along with probably every other socialist
educator in the West, were inquiring in to the reasons why the
working class had not developed a revolutionary consciousness. In
pursuit of some answer to that question we encountered the current
theorising about ideology. Prior to this we had used the term to refer
to a set body of ideas or beliefs. However we were to learn that that
definition had little explanatory potential; it simply demarcated one
ideology from another. On the other hand, a more highly theorised
concept of ideology had the potential of explaining how ideological
thinking serves to maintain our consent or at least our resignation to
our social formation6. We came to understand that some
explanations, academic and otherwise, were ideological because
they were based on partial or fragmented aspects of our reality. As a
consequence they served to conceal real social contradictions - to
keep apart things which were in fact related and dependant upon
one another7, and which could only be truly understood within that
relation, e.g. teachers and learners or wealth and poverty.
Ideological explanations were therefore not false. They had to hook
into our reality, but because they were partial they distorted our
understanding8.

Within our attempts to engage in Freirean dialogue, we began to

practice 'ideology critique'9. We became quite adept in identifying
ideological discourses but this was hardly satisfactory. On the basis
of our reading we acknowledged that ideology was the result of real
contradictions and that therefore only through social practice could
it be challenged. We needed a strategy, but the only one offered by
the theorists of ideology appeared to be to engaged in 'ideological
struggle'. The suggestion was to substitute a more expansive
ideology - one which reflected proletarian interests rather than the
limiting and exploitative interests of the bourgeoisie10. However
imposing thinking on others was antithetical to our concept of
socialism. How could people become the voluntary agents of their
own critically conceived destiny - their history - with a view of the
world they had not worked out for themselves? It was, in fact,
Gramsci who raised this question:

...is it better to think, without critical awareness, in a disjointed and

episodic way?...to take part in a conception of the world
mechanically imposed...by one of the many social groups in which
everyone is automatically involved...Or, on the other hand, is it
better to work out consciously and critically one's own conception of
the world and thus, in connection with the labours of one's own
brain, choose one's sphere of activity, take an active part in the
creation of the history of the world,...refusing to accept passively
and supinely from outside the moulding of one's personality? 11

It became increasingly clear that we needed to come to terms with

Marx's dialectic theory and method of analysis. This had enabled
him to lay bare the inner mechanisms or the real social
contradictions of capitalism. However since capitalism is not static
we would need the dialectic to grasp the present movements and
developments of the social contradictions. We had to develop an
intimate knowledge of these contradictions in order to work out a
strategy for change. Therefore it was in order to grasp the dialectic
that we went to Marx; little did we anticipate the relation between
the dialectic and his other theoretical contributions. Since we were
searching for the dialectic, we reasonably started with his economic
writings. We found that in the Grundrisse and the four volumes
of Capital we were being told not just how capitalism works but how
that working leads to the way both bourgeois economists and
people in general think about it. This finding encouraged us to check
into what Marx's earlier philosophical writings had to say about
consciousness and ideology.

Marx's theory of consciousness - a theory of praxis

Marx's theory of consciousness is, in fact, a theory of praxis12 and

this is what makes his and Engels' materialism both distinctive and
epistemologically and ontologically revolutionary. This theory of
praxis developed out of their critique of three areas of thinking
current in the 1840s viz. Hegelian and neo-Hegelian idealism,
materialism and bourgeois thought in general, in which they
included a great deal of socialist thinking. The first problem, as they
saw it, with all these types of thinking was a tendency toward
dualism or dichotomising - separating things which could only be
properly understood within a relation13. Idealism and materialism
were but reversals of each other. For example by separating thought
or ideas from the real world, idealism assigned temporal priority to
ideas and designated them as the creators of the reality. Similarly
materialism simply reversed the process and made the real world
the origin of ideas. Both however conceived the real world as static
either because it had reached its full development or because it had
always existed in its current form. Bourgeois thinking in general
adhered to either one or the other of these views. The second
problem, which relates to the first, is that these ways of thinking are
for the most part ahistorical. Perhaps it would be better to say they
were not thoroughly historical because they failed to trace the real
contradictions which were the truth or essence of current
phenomena. According to Marx and Engels, current phenomena
were the current result - an historical result - of the development of
a real contradiction14. Much of their dialectic theory and the
distinction between phenomenon and essence were culled from
Hegel. However with Hegel, dialectic movement was confined to the
movement of ideas which he assumed had reached the pinnacle of
development in the German State; therefore with Hegel the dialectic
remained speculative and ultimately conservative15. Marx
radicalised the dialectic by applying it to the movement of real
contradictions in a real world. But more on this later.

Marx and Engels explained that consciousness was the result of real
'sensuous' human activity16. It was produced and reproduced
simultaneously or in unity with the way people expressed their lives
- especially by the ways in which they produced and reproduced
their material existence and their species. These modes of
expression were historically specific. So far in history, people have
been born into relations within which they produce and reproduce
their lives; yet these relations and practices are not of their own
design. Nevertheless they accept them as natural and inevitable.
This form of praxis, the unity of action and thought, is a limited form
of praxis. Marx and Engels' whole project was about laying the
foundations from which people could begin a critical and
revolutionary praxis. Critical praxis would entail a new unity
between a dialectic grasping of reality and action aimed at
consciously transforming relations and material existence. Once
Marx and Engels had clarified their own thinking about the formation
of ideas17, it fell to Marx to carry out the detailed, dialectic analysis
of the inner mechanisms, the dialectical contradictions, of the
capitalist social formation.

Marx's theory of ideology

We would argue that, although Marx doesn't use the turn ideology
often in his economic writings, the sense of the concept is there
together with a materialist explanation of its source 18. In his earlier
writing as well as the economic texts, Marx does not claim that all
thinking within bourgeois society is ideological only that there is a
tendency towards ideological explanation. This tendency is due to
the way that consciousness is actively produced within real
experience together with the nature of that experience within
capitalism. If thought tends to divide or separate that which in fact
is interdependent, it is because we experience the interdependent
components of the relation in a different time and space. For
example, the motor force of production under capitalism is the
creation and augmentation of profit. Marx carefully explains how the
basis of profit, i.e. surplus value, is created in production and
sometimes added to within the process of circulation but that
commodities pregnant with this surplus must be exchanged for
profit to be realised. Therefore profit depends upon the unity of
production and exchange19. Since even the workers who produce
commodities have no claim to them, most of everyone's experience
of commodities occurs within exchange. Marx20 calls this the 'noisy'
sphere because it is from within our experience of market relations
that all the ideas which justify the system originate - ideas such as
equality, freedom and individual choice. We also think that profit is
derived from exchange because, in fact, profit continues to be
redistributed in this sphere between middlemen or merchants.
However the redistribution of money from one person's pockets to
another's is only a secondary source of profit-making under
capitalism. The real motive force of the system is the augmentation
or growth of capital. One person becoming wealthier by outdealing
another cannot explain the growth of capital. Marx, of course,
explained it by dialectically establishing the necessary relation
between production and exchange which was based on an even
more essential relation between labour power and capital 21.

From our previous study of ideology, we knew that ideological

explanations offered a distorted understanding which served to
justify capitalism thereby serving bourgeois interests and the
continuation of social contradictions22. We also knew that they were
distorted because they drew upon partial aspects or fragments of
reality; therefore distortion was created not by bold lies but partial
truths23. As a consequence, the real truth - the contradictions - and,
therefore, the totality of determinations which make capitalism and
its growth possible were concealed. We also understood that
ideology was difficult to challenge because it locked into some real
aspect of our experience. However it was only through Marx that we
came to understand how and why development of the inherent
contradictions of capitalism creates a lived experience and a
consciousness, a praxis, which is itself fragmented and partial. We
also came to understand more precisely how our own everyday
praxis was limited and therefore susceptible to ideological
explanation. If we were not to be just as submerged in our social
formation as human beings had once been submerged in nature, we
needed a different, a more critical way of understanding the reality
that we hoped to change. History would only become human
history, the conscious choice of human beings, when we could begin
to grasp our present and then direct our future dialectically.

Marx's dialectic - a theory and a method

To analyse capitalism dialectically, Marx had to assume that it

operated dialectically24. Whether or not Marx thought that the
dialectic was the principle of all development and change is not
clear; however he certainly did not dissuade Engels from applying
the dialectic to nature. Marx's own energies were devoted to laying
bare the dialectical movement of capitalism. The real point here,
however, is that whatever the subject matter, one must have a
theory that the reality of the subject matter - its principle of change
- is dialectical. Unlike many methods of analysis, therefore, the
dialectic is dependent upon the content - it is about grasping the
movement of the content. This is perhaps why some Marxists have
been reluctant to use the terms method or logic in connection with
the dialectic because a method or a logic is usually defined as being
independent from content25. They are abstract. However, the
dialectic is concrete because it penetrates the world of pseudo-
concrete phenomena in order to follow the movement of the real
concrete26.

Since Capital begins with an analysis of the development of the

commodity form, many commentators have thought that this, the
commodity, was the real object with which Marx began his dialectic
investigation. It was not; it was, in fact, the result rather than the
origin. Although we cannot evidence this, we are fairly convinced
that he began with the question of how M became M1, i.e. how did
money become capital and why did it in so doing have an
augmented value?27 In each instance of his analysis he takes a
current phenomenon of this social formation and assumes it is an
historical result of the relation between two opposites. This relation
or unity of two opposites is a dialectical contradiction. Each of these
opposites is what it is by virtue of its relation to the other 28. It is the
internal relation between the two opposites that determines the
development of each. Labour power and capital are a dialectic
contradiction because capital could not be M1 if it did not extract a
surplus value from labour power and labour power would not be the
only commodity the worker can sell for an exchange value or wage,
which enables labour to obtain the necessities of life, if it did not
provide this 'use-value' for capital.

Once Marx identifies a particular dialectic contradiction, he then

dialectically splits each of the opposites. For example labour is
grasped as use-value, i.e. labour power and exchange value, i.e. the
wage; and capital is grasped as constant and variable capital. Each
split allows him to trace the historical development of the
interdependent opposites. Sometimes further splits are necessary.
For example, labour power must be dialectically analysed as paid
and unpaid labour to explain the creation of surplus value and the
rate of surplus value. The further Marx delved into the historical
roots of these inherent contradiction, the more he had to 'fine tune'
his concepts. In fact, Marx used concepts dialectically 29 and the
failure to understand this has led to the not infrequent bemoaning
that he did not offer a clear concept of this or that - but especially
'class'. We think he offered a very clear concept but one which will
be missed if not understood dialectically within the real movements
of class content. Let's look at how he developed a dialectical
presentation of these movements.

When Marx wanted to refer to the over-arching contradiction of

capitalism, he referred to the proletariat and capital. The proletariat
refers to all those who are employed in the production of surplus
value, all those who are employed but who as yet do not produce
surplus value but who could, e.g. service sector workers or teachers,
and the unemployed. When he is analysing the current production of
surplus value it refers to productive labour - productive not of a
certain product but producers of surplus value. Yet again when he
needs to establish the special use value that productive labour has
for capital, he employs the concept of labour power30. He wasn't
changing his mind but was using concepts in a dialectically specific
way, re-establishing in each instance the relation which must be
grasped as the essence of each determination. Although he never
stated it, we think Marx realised that human language, composed of
singular words, actually serves to create static, non-fluid concepts -
incapable of grasping their relational source and movement.

Why didn't Marx take time to write about his dialectic way of
grasping - analysing - a dialectic reality? We can only speculate. For
example there may have been more pressing demands on his time.
Perhaps the more he came to understand the movements and
developments of capitalism, the more he understood that in the
absence of a revolutionary working class rather than socialism, a
barbaric and sophisticated form of feudalistic capitalism could be
the necessary consequence. He might have anticipated the rise of
imperialism and transnational capitalism and felt that time was
running out. Perhaps this was why he began to contemplate the
possibility of a society developing the forces of production by some
means other than capitalism31. In passing, if applying the description
'sophisticated feudalism' to transnational capital sounds rather
bizarre, spend some time analysing the movements of transnational
capital and the relocation of power outside of nation states. We
would suggest that you will find that nation states have become
increasingly subservient to the needs of this form of capital.

Yet another factor which demanded his time and energy, and which
may have, therefore, deflected his attention from writing about his
dialectic, was his awareness of a paradox which his own theories
revealed. He must have known that his readers would
read Capital with a bourgeois consciousness that would tend to
separate the economic analysis from the other theoretical
components. It has been well documented that he drafted and re-
drafted Vol.1 and then revised each addition because of his concern
over the clarity of the presentation. Therefore he must have
assumed that he could find a way of presenting Capital that would
prevent a bourgeois reading of it.

Alternatively, time and other demands may have had nothing to do

with Marx not writing about the dialectic. Advances in scientific
thought are never simply about quantitative additions to what is
already known. The big advances equally involve qualitative
changes in the way the subject is understood32. Marx's application of
Hegel's dialectic theory to real contradictions clearly produced such
an advance. However it may be possible for a thinker's way of
thinking to change dramatically without the person involved being
able to fully articulate the crucial qualitative differences. In Marx's
case, however, it seems more likely to us that the real reason for the
absence of Marx's explanation of the dialectic was that he didn't
think it was absent.
Earlier in this paper we mentioned that the dialectic, unlike other
methods, is concrete because it is dependent on its content; it is
about grasping the dialectical movement and development of the
content. Therefore by depicting the dialectic movement of
capitalism in his time, Marx was also depicting a material or
concrete way of understanding and analysing it. The 'method' must
be observed in its relation to its content because its procedures
follow the rules of the content rather than existing outside and
independent from it. Since the use of the method is premised upon
the assumption that the principle of movement and change in the
content is dialectical, all that we actually needed from Marx was a
detailed description of a dialectic reality. In fact, this is precisely
what he have us believe in Capital.

From what we have said about the contribution of Marx's thought to

radical education, the necessity to engage in critical praxis appears
central. If consciousness steeped in ideology is to be transcended,
the social contradictions that lie at its heart must be resolved in
reality. The degrees of freedom for educators to achieve such work
will vary. For some the social relations within the learning group may
be the only arena in which 'prefigurative' initiatives may be
attempted; for others greater potential may exist. However, the
struggle to develop a critical consciousness in terms of the above
definitions may help us to recognise radical education when we see
it.

http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/00002693.htm

https://sociologytwynham.com/2008/12/20/marxism-and-
education/

Whats the point of education? A Marxist perspective

Marxist perspective of education

Marxist perspective by Sam Cook a former student

Marxs position about the ruling class was they have the power to control the working
classes not with force but with ideas. These ideas justify their dominant position and
conceal the true source of their power along with their exploitation of the subject
class. Remember: Marxism is a belief that capitalism allows the owners of capital
(the ruling-class or bosses) to exploit the workers (employees) and this causes conflict
between the two classes (known as social-class conflict).

In Marxs view this ruling class ideology is far more effective in controlling the
subject classes than physical force, as it is hidden from the consciousness of the
subject class this is known as false consciousness. One example Marxists might
use is the role of meritocracy in education to control the working classes by getting
the working classes used to being rewarded for being good and doing as youre told.

Education and Ideology

Louis Althusser (a Marxist) (1971) argued that the main role of education in a
capitalist society was the reproduction of an efficient and obedient work force. This is
achieved through schools:

1. transmitting the ideology that capitalism is just and reasonable (school teaches
you to compete with your fellow pupils by trying to do better than them)

2. train future workers to become submissive to authority (schools teachers you

to accept as normal to do as youre told, this way when your boss orders you
what to do, it seems perfectly normal)

Althusser argues that ideology in capitalist society is fundamental to social control

and education is instrumental in transmitting this ideology. He argues education is an
ideological state apparatus which helps pass on ruling class ideology (for example
ideology) in order to justify the capitalist system.

Bowles and Gintiss (Marxists) research Schooling in Capitalist America (1976)

supported Althussers ideas that there is a close correspondence (known as
the correspondence principle) between the social relationships in the classroom and
those in the workplace. Through the hidden curriculum (it is vital you follow the
hidden curriculum link). Bowles and Ginitis argue schools introduce the long
shadow of work because schools create a hard-working disciplined workforce for
capitalist societies. This process is essential for social reproduction the reproduction
of a new generation of workers schooled (disciplined) into accepting their role in
society. This occurs through:

School and workplace school mirrors the workplace through its hierarchical
structures teachers give orders and pupils obey. Pupils have little control over their
work a fact of life in the majority of jobs. Schools reward punctuality and obedience
and are dismissive of independence, critical awareness and creativity this mirrors
the workplace expectations. The hidden curriculum is seen by Bowles and Gintis as
instrumental in this process.

Social inequality schools legitimate the myth that everyone has an equal chance
those that work hard deserve the top jobs, these people deserve their superior rewards
(meritocracy). In this way inequality becomes justified. However Bowles and Gintis
argue that rewards in education and occupation are based not on ability but on social
background. The higher a persons class or origin the more likely they are to attain top
qualifications and a top job. See Bourdon (position theory); Bourdiau (cultural capital)
; and Bernstein ( language and class). For Bowles and Ginitis then, school can be seen
to legitimize social inequality.

Assessing Marxist and functionalist perspectives of education.

https://revisesociology.com/2015/01/27/marxist-perspective-education/

The Marxist Perspective on Education

Posted on January 27, 2015by Karl Thompson

Traditional Marxists see the education system as working in the interests of ruling class
elites. According to the Marxist perspective on education, the system performs three
functions for these elites:

Reproduces class inequality.

Legitimates class inequality.
It works in the interests of capitalist employers
1. The reproduction of class inequality
In school, the middle classes use their material and cultural capital to ensure that their
children get into the best schools and the top sets. This means that the wealthier pupils
tend to get the best education and then go onto to get middle class jobs. Meanwhile
working class children are more likely to get a poorer standard of education and end up
in working class jobs. In this way class inequality is reproduced

2. The Legitimation of class inequality

Marxists argue that in reality money determines how good an education you get, but
people do not realize this because schools spread the myth of meritocracy in school
we learn that we all have an equal chance to succeed and that our grades depend on our
effort and ability. Thus if we fail, we believe it is our own fault. This legitimates or
justifies the system because we think it is fair when in reality it is not.

3. Teaching the skills future capitalist employers need

In Schooling in Capitalist America (1976) Bowles and Gintis suggest that there is a
correspondence between values learnt at school and the way in which the workplace
operates. The values, they suggested, are taught through the Hidden Curriculum. The
Hidden Curriculum consists of those things that pupils learn through the experience of
attending school rather than the main curriculum subjects taught at the school. So
pupils learn those values that are necessary for them to tow the line in menial manual
jobs, as outlined below
SCHOOL VALUES Corresponds to EXPLOITATIVE LOGIC OF THE WORKPLACE

Passive subservience (of pupils to teachers) corresponds to Passive subservience of

workers to managers

Acceptance of hierarchy (authority of teachers) corresponds to Authority of managers

Motivation by external rewards (grades not learning) corresponds to being Motivated

by wages not the joy of the job

Evaluations of the Traditional Marxist Perspective on Education

Positive
There is an overwhelming wealth of evidence that schools do reproduce class inequality
because the middle classes do much better in education because they have more cultural
capital (Reay) and because the 1988 Education Act benefited them (Ball Bowe and Gewirtz)
Conversely, WWC children less likely to go to university because of fear of debt (Connor
et al)
Negative
Henry Giroux, says the theory is too deterministic. He argues that working class pupils
are not entirely molded by the capitalist system, and do not accept everything that they are
taught Paul Willis study of the Lads also suggests this.
Education can actually harm the Bourgeois many left wing, Marxist activists are
university educated

Neo- Marxism: Paul Willis: Learning to Labour (1977)

Willis research involved visiting one school and observing and interviewing 12 working
class rebellious boys about their attitude to school during their last 18 months at school
and during their first few months at work.

Willis argues pupils rebelling are evidence that not all pupils are brainwashed into being
passive, subordinate people as a result of the hidden curriculum.

Willis therefore criticizes Traditional Marxism. He says that pupils are not directly
injected with the values and norms that benefit the ruling class, some actively reject
these. These pupils also realise that they have no real opportunity to succeed in this
system.

BUT, Willis still believes that this counter-school culture still produces workers who are
easily exploited by their future employers:

The Counter School Culture

Willis described the friendship between these 12 boys (or the lads) as a counter-school
culture. Their value system was opposed to that of the school. This value system was
characterised as follows:
1. The lads felt superior to the teachers and other pupils
2. They attached no value to academic work, more to having a laff
3. The objective of school was to miss as many lessons as possible, the reward for this
was status within the group
4. The time they were at school was spent trying to win control over their time and make
it their own.

Attitudes to future work

They looked forward to paid manual work after leaving school and identified all non-
school activities (smoking, going out) with this adult world, and valued such activities far
more than school work.
The lads believed that manual work was proper work, and the type of jobs that hard
working pupils would get were all the same and generally pointless.
Their counter school culture was also strongly sexist.
Evaluations of Willis
Very small sample of only working class white boys
Overly sympathetic with the boys going native?