However, if this is the case, then that suggests it is less deeply-ingrained than Bourdieu suggests. However, some would argue that, whatever someone’s background, by the time that person is working as a teacher they have become middle-class and will have adopted a middle-class habitus. As the percentage of pupils from a working-class background going on to university degrees has increased, so the number of teachers from a working-class background has also increased, and these teachers will recognise working-class habitus and should understand issues relating to language codes. However, school teachers come from a wide range of social backgrounds. While schools might be full of teachers who encourage their pupils to challenge and question authority and who are highly critical of aspects of capitalism and bourgeois society, those same teachers might easily unconsciously assume pupils with a working-class habitus and who always speak and write in a restricted rather than elaborate language code are less able, less engaged, less interested or making less effort. However, the neo-Marxist argument that this is often about processes that happen unconsciously or semi-consciously rather than Althusser-style brainwashing seems more credible. Many teachers give their reason for joining the profession as being that they wanted to make a difference. One potential problem for all Marxist theories of education is that people who work in education are famously left-wing biased (!) and often got into education specifically to do the opposite of what they are accused of in these theories. In this study note we briefly explore some potential evaluation points on neo-Marxist views on education.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |