Control, Conformity, and Compulsory Schooling: Three Article Reviews

Chomsky on Schools, Funding, and Corporate Control

The first article, "The Function of Schools: Subtler and Cruder Methods of Control" by Noam Chomsky, deals with schools and their funding. The questions posed by the interviewing participants add a layer of complexity and help bring focus to the undeniable issues that many American schools and the education system face. Among the topics discussed, funding plays a crucial role in how educational institutions create curriculum and promote learning. One example mentioned is the company IBM and how it trained engineers not to be the best engineers possible, but to be the best at performing the skills necessary to accomplish its profit-driven goals.

This resulted in schools like MIT focusing on producing graduates suited to the needs of corporations in order to receive the adequate funding required to keep their institutions running. The mention of Allan Bloom and the desire for students to learn a specific kind of curriculum — or ideology — deemed appropriate helps clarify early on the reasoning schools have for teaching in a certain way: to keep the population under some level of control. America, it is argued, favored a more functional model of teaching over a more cohesive and inventive one. The popularity of the Bloom phenomenon, Chomsky suggests, is mostly a reaction to the liberating effect of the student movement of the 1960s — meaning that the more people rebelled against the established system, the more others sought to keep it structured and controlled.

A significant part of the reason education in America is faltering lies not so much in the material covered, but in how that material is understood and absorbed. The article states that memorizing something is not the same as learning it, because there is no meaning and no personal experience attached to mere memorization. When a learner attaches personal meaning to the act of acquiring knowledge, that knowledge is less likely to be forgotten and more likely to be applied over time.

The main idea the article conveys is expressed on page 28: "Real education is about getting people involved to think for themselves." This reflects the author's attempt to convey the ineffectiveness of simply following orders and instructions. If people think independently and learn in a way that is meaningful to them, they will accept acquired knowledge more readily and effectively. American society as a whole — especially in the present day — is focused on corporations and capitalism. The American dream, the article implies, is more about fitting in than standing out. This tendency appears to generate lower quality in education and an accumulation of mediocre skills rather than great and unique minds.

Another highlight of the article is its declaration about the nature of American education. Success in American schools, it is argued, comes from obeying and following the rules until one achieves — or attempts to achieve — some measure of success. What is somewhat vague, and arguably more opinion than analysis, is the claim that anyone who does not follow the status quo and is disobedient is viewed as someone with behavioral problems. In reality, many educational problems do not stem from rebellious behavior but rather from a lack of resources. Schools in better-funded neighborhoods produce students with stronger academic outcomes than those dealing with limited supplies and larger class sizes. This is where the article falls short in convincing the reader to accept its central premise.

Assumptions such as the claim that many children with behavior problems are simply independent-minded seem inaccurate. There are children born with physical and mental disabilities, and others with health problems caused by poor nutrition or abuse at home, whose difficulties in school cannot be reduced to independent-mindedness. Failing to provide evidence for assertions like this creates a sense of unreliability and leaves the reader feeling misled.

Critical Assessment of Chomsky's Argument

The personal experience Chomsky shares about his own education adds a layer of authenticity but lacks enough concrete detail to meaningfully support the validity of his claims. The article begins by identifying many genuine problems with the American education system, but it ultimately fails to persuade due to its vagueness and tendency to lump disparate issues together rather than examining them precisely. The interview format — with its guiding questions — is really the only element that consistently draws the reader back into focus. As the article progresses and the questions disappear, its persuasive tone diminishes accordingly.

"The institutional role of the schools for the most part is just to train people for obedience and conformity, and to make them controllable and indoctrinated" is another claim made by the writer — that schools are instruments of control rather than places of genuine learning and growth. Although there is some truth to these statements, stating them without supporting data or historical background weakens the argument. A brief mention of a Black Harvard student offers a glimpse into the more complicated reasons behind the state of American education, but it falls short of adequately developing the article's central theme: that the education system in America creates conformity and therefore limits thinking.

One interesting point discussed is the Pentagon system. This system fueled the creation of computer technology later exploited by private corporations for profit. Describing this dynamic helps illustrate why American schools may feel pressure to instruct in certain ways — ultimately to generate profit in the private sector, which in turn funds the schools. More profit means more funding. The section titled "Cruder Methods of Control," which addresses 1950s schooling and the deliberate modification of learning material, points to a more concrete and historically grounded way that schools attempted to limit certain kinds of knowledge. This section is more convincing and lends credence to the argument that conformity is embedded in the agenda of American schooling — that students are encouraged to think in ways that benefit the economy and corporations rather than themselves.

All in all, the article incorporates personal stories and experiences that at times both challenge and persuade the reader to reflect on the possible ineffectiveness of American schools. However, it ultimately fails to deliver concrete facts. Even toward the end, the mention of a woman explaining her dissertation reads as subjective rather than objective and does not effectively illuminate the real problems facing the school system or their underlying causes. The beginning was considerably more effective, and the article's persuasive force noticeably weakened as it continued.

The second article, "Education is Enforcement! The Centrality of Compulsory Schooling in Market Societies" by David A. Gabbard, is drawn from the book Education is Enforcement. This carefully written and persuasive piece offers a timely and accurate response to the paternalistic discourse of imperialism embedded in American consciousness since the attacks of September 11, 2001.

Within the pragmatic logic of present-day politics, with its emphasis on militaristic responses to terrorism, the risk of a cyclical, war-driven situation creates interest-based policies that inevitably affect American education. What was once conducted behind closed doors now operates as an overt aim for global dominance, directed at safeguarding corporate interests worldwide. The article explores and recounts the background of public education effectively and clearly links the "centrality of compulsory schooling to the enforcement of market society" (59). Just as the church used the doctrine of original sin to claim its centrality in human life — and therefore its need for power in society — the same logic applies to corporations and their constant need to assert their purpose and necessity. According to Gabbard's own analysis of past attempts at education reform, schooling is used as a "ritual for enforcing a market society" (60–61).

Gabbard on Compulsory Schooling and Market Society

Schooling has become a means of control — a mechanism by which corporations and those in power keep people and their motivations in check. The strongest parts of the article are the writer's ability to connect the logic and background of why things are the way they are and to show how this affects not just education but everyday life. As Juliet Schor describes in The Overworked American, even in an age of labor-saving technologies, members of market societies are working longer hours than ever before, to the detriment of family and community ties. People strive to accumulate as much profit as possible while sacrificing everything else. This may yield short-term gain, but it inevitably leads to long-term suffering. Corporations — the entities that fuel American education — do not seem concerned with the effect their control has on the broader population. They care primarily about accumulating wealth and power in order to maintain their dominance.

The section dealing with the church and its attempt to harness the masses illuminates another historical model of control. In order to influence the formation and exercise of conscience, the church had to construct, project, and maintain an image of benevolence. This carefully constructed image was then used to define its institutional mission in terms of a universal moral imperative that the church claimed responsibility for serving.

The writer points to the "doctrine of original sin" as the mechanism by which this moral dilemma was manufactured — providing the church with the moral initiative it needed to instill hysteria and, therefore, fear in the masses. The greater the fear, the more susceptible people became to changes that would benefit the church. This is directly analogous, Gabbard argues, to the present-day war on terror. The church, however, did not pretend to offer grace directly — only the means by which it could be achieved. Salvation was possible only through participation in the church's own regime (59).

The current education system is in need of change. Corporations and their allies, as the article describes, are restructuring schooling and education systems across the world as part of an ideological and policy offensive aimed at generating financial gain. The ongoing privatization of public services, along with the capitalization and commodification of human potential to meet global economic demands, creates a problem that undermines society's ability to grow. These education markets are characterized by selection, exclusion, and are situated within the rampant growth of national and international inequalities.

The elimination of state subsidies to education and other public services is only one part of the broader anti-public welfare strategy of the capitalist class. As Gabbard notes, this is part of a broader instrument to transfer control from the public to the private sector. National and global capitalism seek to cut public expenditure in order to create dependence on private alternatives. In this, Gabbard argues, they have succeeded — just as the church did in its time.