I feel there are two variables that conflict theory is not addressing. These are the individual's level of contentment and value of learning.
I understand that there are some biased rules in the world, but not everyone that is in the working class is there because of unfair rules in the school system. Some people are just content with less and are not consumed by the race to secure a high paying job. I also believe that if a student is discontent with his situation and he is determined to get an education and make a change then no unfair rules are going to stop him. Some of histories most admired people are those who rose above the odds set against them.
I also feel that the value of learning is not necessarily defined by the financial value an education will provide. I keep thinking of the Willis's case study with the lads and how they chose not to accept the teacher's bargain of respect for knowledge that would lead to a rewarding job. I have seen and heard this in school and have been guilty of using this bargain myself. However, I have realized there is a danger of defining the value of education by the rewarding, high paying job you will receive from it. Sometimes this is just not the case especially if the economy is in a recession and not many jobs are available. When this is the result it is tempting to believe our education was all for not and no longer have the desire to challenge ourselves and continue learning. I feel instead we should choose to emphasize learning for personal growth and better understanding of oneself and the world around us. I feel students will be able to see these benefits sooner and regardless of economic circumstances.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
I think conflict theory does address those two issues, but I didn't do a very good job of talking about them in class.
For the Marxist, contentment in capitalism is a sham. That is, capitalism needs discontent with material conditions in order to function -- people have to want more stuff (false consciousness). It's a different type of discontent that leads to the move toward socialism, however. Once you achieve consciousness of your situation as a worker, discontent with the present social system will lead you to band together with other workers and move toward collective ownership of the means of production. Thus, the content worker in capitalism isn't a good capitalist (because she doesn't consume), but she's not a very good Marxist either.
In terms of the personal value of education, the Marxist would say, again, that's a bit of a sham. Marxism doesn't really work at the individual level of analysis; it's about social groups. So if an individual gets something out of an otherwise oppressive education, that's below the radar for the Marxist. The Marxist sees the system of education in economic terms (because he sees everything in economic terms).
Foucault would probably have a lot to say about "education as personal fulfillment", but that's another post.
Excellent reflection.
This is a good way to look at the value of learning--one that I sometimes lose sight of. Our education really should not be for strictly economic gain, although it is a prevalent belief that we should get all the education we can so we can succeed financially. That insinuates that there is no other real value for our education other than that. There is a real conflict there. It would seem here that our discontentment in our current financial state is our motivation for more education, not the true enjoyment of learning.
Post a Comment