This essay assesses the functionalist perspective on the role of education in British society, tracing the theoretical contributions of Émile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons before evaluating Marxist and neo-Marxist challenges to that framework. Beginning with Durkheim's argument that schools promote social solidarity and an appropriate division of labour, the essay then examines Parsons' emphasis on meritocracy. It proceeds to assess Marxist critics such as Bowles and Gintis, who contend that education reproduces class inequality, and Paul Willis' neo-Marxist study of working-class identity. The essay concludes by considering the liberal perspective of John Dewey and evaluating the overall adequacy of functionalism as an explanation of education's role in contemporary Britain.
How best to educate children is a constant source of national debate in Great Britain. Likewise, the question of the function or role of education in society is no less contentious amongst sociological theorists. During the early 20th century, functionalism was the dominant mode used to conceptualise the purpose of education. In the 1960s and 1970s, Marxist critics and other authors on the subject of education began to grow more critical of its central tenets, which they saw as reinforcing social inequalities rather than honouring the capacity of the educational system to enact meaningful changes to improve people's lives and to disrupt the unjust nature of the class system.
The purpose of education according to classical functionalism, as articulated by Émile Durkheim, suggests that "society is more than the sum of its parts; rather, each part of society is functional for the stability of the whole society" (Crossman 2013). Schools perform important socialisation functions within a nation such as Great Britain, orienting an increasingly diverse society to the history and values of the dominant social order. Children learn how to get along with others and how to respect authority in a manner that transfers into how they behave in a work environment. Employers and the nation as a whole both rely upon the school system to function properly. Without schools, employers would not have employees able to perform their duties; without schools the nation would be a hodge-podge of values and allegiances and would be unable to defend itself.
However, "when one part of the system is not working or is dysfunctional, it affects all other parts and creates social problems, which leads to social change" (Crossman 2013). When children are not being educated properly and cannot find work, social unrest inevitably arises; when specific segments of society are not appropriately socialised through the school system — whether they are young, working-class men or the children of immigrants — society does not function properly as a cohesive whole. Education is thus a medium for "social solidarity" and for creating community (Functionalism and education, 2013, History Learning Site). Durkheim viewed the stratification of society in a relatively positive fashion: the fact that not all students are deemed suitable for all jobs was, in his view, necessary for an appropriate division of labour under the capitalist system.
Talcott Parsons was a functionalist much like Durkheim, although Parsons gave greater attention to the question of inequality — namely, why certain persons are assigned certain functions within the educational system. Parsons stressed the meritocratic nature of the education system, believing it enables intellectually gifted students to rise above their original class status, thereby ensuring that the stratification of society does not become inevitably based upon one's background. This serves a positive function for society, in effect ensuring that the "cream rises to the top." "Achievements and rewards are based on effort and ability — achieved status" (Functionalism and education, 2013, History Learning Site). This is advantageous for society given that the workers best suited for their jobs fill those positions.
Although Great Britain was not always meritocratic in terms of the structure of its educational system, it has increasingly become so over the years, according to modern functionalists: "The Robbins Report of 1963 established the principle that all those capable of benefiting from higher education should be entitled to it. New universities were built, polytechnics were established, and the Open University gave adults fresh educational opportunities. Children of school-leaving age were encouraged to stay on in school sixth forms, or to attend college. By 1990, 36 per cent of 16–18 year olds were in full-time education in Britain" (Haralambos & Holborn 1995: 725).
"Marxists contend education reproduces class inequality"
"Willis shows class culture shapes boys' educational resistance"
"Dewey's progressive vision of individual educational potential"
Functionalism's stress upon the harmonious functioning of society, along with its belief in meritocracy, seems to be belied by the growing divides of income and lifestyle in society, despite the fact that schools may be more inclined to espouse equality-promoting rhetoric. Although class divisions and a lack of social mobility may be less acute than they were a hundred years ago, few would argue that a true meritocracy exists or that education can fairly equalise the vast discrepancies between the advantages that different children enjoy at birth. The solutions to this problem, however, are not straightforward, and Marxists and liberals continue to debate amongst themselves, as well as to challenge the functionalist paradigm.
You’re 44% through this paper. Sign up to read the remaining 3 sections.
Sign Up Now — Instant Access Already a member? Log inAlways verify citation format against your institution’s current style guide requirements.