socio-swag-blog

[socio-swag-blog]

NEW RIGHTIST INFLUENCE ON GOVERNMENT POLICY

New Rightism has typically played a role in the Conservative Party since the 1970s, however it has also influenced other governments such as New Labour.

CONSERVATIVE GOVERNMENTS 1979-97

A neo-liberal conservative government, lead by Margaret Thatcher.

A ban on teaching that homosexuality was an acceptable family relationship, and it’s promotion through local authorities

Introduction of the Child Support Agency, which enforced the payments of child support from absent parents (usually fathers)

NEW LABOUR GOVERNMENTS 1997-2010

Labour’s center-right compromise after 3 successive defeats, lead by Tony Blair.

Heavy emphasis on parental responsibility over children, introduction ofParenting Orders for parents of truants and young offenders

New Rightist view that the family is the core institution of society, with the heterosexual families being the optimum environment for bringing up children

However some New Labour policies do not reflect New Rightist ideas and favor the new-conventional family structure (Robert Chester) of dual-income:

Extended maternity (and paternity) leave, up to three months paid leave for both parents to seek time off work for family reasons

Working Families Tax Credit, enabling some parents to claim tax relief on childcare costs

The New Deal, helping lone-parents secure employment

Other policies New Labour introduced such as taxation and minimum wage policies also do not reflect New Rightist ideals, instead aiming to lift children out of poverty by re-distributing wealth. A final area in which New Labour’s policies contrasted the New Right’s was supporting alternatives to the conventional heterosexual family:

Civil-partnerships for same-sex couples

Unmarried couples given adoption rights

Criminalizing discrimination based on grounds of sexuality

THE COALITION GOVERNMENT 2010-15

Although the Conservative Party today take a socially-liberal stance on many issues, there is debate within the party surrounding this; Richard Hayton (2010) defines two opposing forces within the party:

Modernizers, who recognize the diversity existing in society today and accommodate this into their policies

Traditionalists, still favour a New Rightist perspective and reject diverse family structures as morally wrong

[socio-swag-blog]

NEW RIGHTIST PERSPECTIVES ON  SOCIAL POLICY

Looking back and idolizing the traditional conception of a family (nuclear, heterosexual-marriage, segregated division of labour - male breadwinner, female housewife), the New Right accuse high divorce rates, cohabitation,homosexual relations and lone-parentship for issues society is faced with today, including welfare dependency and crime. Claiming changes in law have made these factors possible, Brenda Almond (2006) argues that:

Legislation making divorce easier (such as the Divorce Reform Act 1969, authorizing ‘irretrievable breakdown’ as reasonable grounds for divorce) is undermining the the stability of marriage

Civil-partnership for homosexual couples (and more recently gay marriage, 2014) is providing them with a legal status equal to that of heterosexual marriages

Tax laws discriminate against conventional families (singular, often male breadwinner) - paying higher tax than dual-income families

LONE PARENTS, WELFARE AND DEPENDENCY CULTURE

New Right Commentator, Charles Murray (1984) criticizes welfare policy forincentivizing perverse, irresponsible or anti-social behaviour. For example:

Fathers neglecting their responsibilities to provide for the family with knowledge that the state will provide financial support regardless

Council-housing provided for unmarried teenage mothersencourages young girls to become pregnant

Increase of lone-parent families resulting in a generation devoid of a male role-model and paternal authority, of which is responsible for the rising levels of crime

Murray argues these welfare policies have massive implications for the family and develop a dependency culture where, rather than being self-reliant, individuals are not motivated to work as their financial needs are provided for them and their family by the state. This in turn threatens two vital functions of the family:

The socialization of children

The maintenance and stabilization of male work-ethic

THE NEW RIGHT’S SOLUTION

The New Right proposes cuts to public spending on welfare benefits and tighter restrictions as to who is eligible to receive them. These reductions in public spending would decrease tax and therefore provide higher wages, providing more of an incentive for fathers to work. Similarly, denying pregnant teens access to free council-houses would negate a part of the incentive involved in teen pregnancy in the first place.

EVALUATION

Feminists argue the reforms (and lifestyle) proposed by the New Right are an attempt to regress to the conventional patriarchal structure of the family which subordinated and oppressed women

The New Right wrongly assumes the nuclear, patriarchal family is ‘natural’ rather than socially constructed

Pam Abbot and Claire Wallace (1992) argue cutting benefits would drive working class families into even greater poverty, reducing their self-reliance further

[socio-swag-blog]

PERSPECTIVES ON FAMILY AND SOCIAL POLICY

DONZELOT: POLICING THE FAMILY

Michel Foucault’s (1976) theory of surveillance is elaborated and applied to family by Jacques Donzelot (1977) in the context of how professionals exercise authority over families.

Donzelot argues professional health and child-care workers change and influence families, justifying their authority with their knowledge and expertise, and refers to this process as ‘the policing of families’. Working class families are particularly targeted in this sense and labeled as a problem.

Donzelot rejects the Functionalist notion of a ‘march of progress’; with social policy produces an ever more fair and free society. Instead arguing these policies as a form of state control over family life. To Donzelot, professionals act as nothing more than agents of social control, for example forcing parents of ‘problem’ families to attend parenting classes by court order.

CRITICISMS

Both Marxists and Feminists criticize Donzelot for not identifying the beneficiaries of these policies (Marxists pointing to upper-classes and Feminists to men).

[socio-swag-blog]

FUNCTIONALIST PERSPECTIVES ON SOCIAL POLICY

In conjunction with the Functionalist view of society as harmonious and not in a state of conflict, Ronald Fletcher (1966)  claims that the introduction of health, education and housing policies (development of the welfare state) allow families to perform other functions more efficiently; such as state-comprehensive education providing children with a standardized education making them more effective at performing their functions in the economy and society as a whole.

CRITICISMS

The functionalist perspective assumes a ‘march of progress’ - that social policies are steadily improving quality of life for families; however, Marxists for example argue policy and reform can revert progresses made, such as cutting welfare benefits to the poor.

It also assumes all members of the family benefit from these policies - whereas feminists would argue that social and family policy disproportionately favors and supports men at the expense of women.

[socio-swag-blog]

The Post-Modernist Perspective

Post modernists would suggest education is changing to cope with the change from Fordism to post Fordism and societies are becoming increasingly fragmented. Therefore, what we are seeing is a greater choice and diversity of types of school and education.

Fordism- Modern economic and social systems based on industrialised, standardised mass production and mass consumption

Post Fordism- The dominant system of economic production, consumption and associated socio-economic phenomena, in most industrialised countries since the late 20th century

[socio-swag-blog]

Feminists on Education

Feminists believe the education system helps to enforce patriarchy, a system favouring males over females, and a system in which males hold most of the power and dominant social positions. Feminists believe that the education system achieves this in a simple way: The hidden curriculum. 

Unlike other sociological viewpoints, Feminists view the hidden curriculum in a very different way. Instead of seeing the hidden curriculum as a way of brainwashing young people with actions and discipline, Feminists believe that it is more through what schools are actually teaching young people and the people who teach them. For example, Feminists believe that the curriculum is very patriarchal. 

Despite the introduction of the National Curriculum, it is still very obvious to spot which subjects are tailored to boys and which are aimed at girls. For example, P.E (Physical Education) is usually seen as a boy’s subject with schools making competitive competitions between other schools in the area a boy’s thing, whereas girls are expected to take up subjects such as textiles and cooking (home economics). 

Feminists believe that this is a very sexist approach to the education system and believe that this is just another way in which the education system is preparing young people for their future: men go to work and women stay at home looking after the house and caring for the family.

Although it is true that there are more females teachers in the education system in England and Wales than male teachers, men still outnumber women at the senior management levels of schools and colleges. Feminists believe that this creates and expectation that positions of authority and power are automatically associated with men and not women.

However, women are actually more likely to move onto higher education and therefore get a better education and perhaps achieve higher than men. For example, in a 2006 consensus in Canada, women accounted for 60% of university graduates. 

[socio-swag-blog]

[socio-swag-blog]

The Hidden Curriculum

The hidden curriculum is like a school’s curriculum except the students do not actively know about it and it is instead implemented subliminally. The hidden curriculum includes things such as being on time to school and lessons, obeying orders given to by the teachers (superior figures),  completing work on time, and being well behaved. These set of rules that students are being subliminally taught are all characteristics that a worker in the workplace must display in order to keep their job and for the workplace to function properly.

[socio-swag-blog]

[socio-swag-blog]

New Right on Education

According to the New Right’s beliefs, the role of education is to instil drive, initiative and enterprise. The New Right believe this will come from competition between schools and colleges, motivating teachers to improve standards and providing parents and students with a choice of schools and colleges.

Does competition between schools raise standards? Measured in terms of GCSE and A-Level results, standards are improving as the 2011 GCE and GCSE results showed. However this may have little or nothing to do with competition between schools.

Is a choice of schools available? In some areas there is no alternative to the local comprehensive. In other areas where choice exists, middle class parents are in a better position to get their children into the best schools using the so-called ‘postcode lottery’.

Can schools make up for the inequalities in the wider society? With good management and high quality teaching, can schools provide equality of opportunity for students from low-income backgrounds? Available evidence suggests that the answer is ‘no’ (Halsey et al. 1997)

The New Right’s impact on education is based on the following: Conservative traditions, mainly from the 1980s and 1990s. The New Right see themselves as being similar tofunctionalists and they believe in the freedom of the individual with less central control. The New Right believe in free market principles within education with a desire to reduce public spending.

The New Right’s policies to reduce social inequality are not given a high priority as they do not believe that such issues are the responsibility of the state.

The New Right wants national prosperity and believes that a competitive economy requires competitive schools that seek to outperform each other via league tables and Ofsted reports.

The New Right views education as an important part in the process of socialisation. They believe that education can help socialise children through religious assemblies, the National Curriculum and citizenship lessons.

The New Right wants educational policies that will increase choice with market principles to raise standards. If a school is successful, it will attract parents and children purely because it is successful. The New Right believes that all parents have the right to send their child to a successful school – hence their support of parental choice. The New Right also believes that a successful school will gather sufficient momentum to build on its successes. They also see the major role of education is the development of skills and knowledge required to compete in the outside market. They believe that schools should be managed in the same way as businesses – something Hargreaves referred to as ‘Kentucky Fried Schooling’ (1989).

The New Right have been influenced by J. Buchanan & C. Tullock (1962) with their public choice theories. They believe that bureaucracy and democracy are likely to produce inefficient and ineffective services with the producers dominating the decision-making process and not the consumers. Buchanan and Tullock see our education system as a monopoly where consumers cannot freely choose alternatives. They believe that education reflects the interests of teachers and the bureaucrats and that pupils and parents have little control over education.

Have the ideas of the New Right influenced education?

They believe that schools, rather than the local education authorities, should manage their own budgets so that there is less centralised control

They see schools as providers with parents and children as the consumers of education.

They believe that schools need to be cost effective and market themselves.

They believe in the validity of league tables, Ofsted inspections and wish to see the introduction of performance related pay for teachers.

They wish to see successful schools being rewarded with schools funded per pupil by the government.

The New Right have based a lot of their ideas on the education systems seen in the USA, Canada and Australia. However, a lot of European countries do not have education systems based on full marketization of their education system.

Salter and Tapper (1988) believe that there are four main components of a right-wing education policy:

A particular desired social order of individual and local choice.

The education and production of individuals to support that order.

Educational institutions ordered and managed by those principles.

A clear conception of human nature that limits both what is educationally desirable and possible.

E. Chubb and T. M. Moe have proposed the full introduction of market forces in education to raise standards. They believe that in state education students, parents and citizens have a legitimate say in how that education system should be run. They believe that vested interests tend to undermine the autonomy of schools, restricting their ability to respond to the needs and wishes of parents. Chubb and Moe believe that state education is intended to serve wider public purposes as determined by politicians.

[socio-swag-blog]

Feminist beliefs on education

Feminists believe that education focuses to much on males, ignoring females to a certain extent. Below are the feminist’s reasons behind this belief.

Gender and education – Feminist perspectives focus on gender inequalities in society. Feminist research has revealed the extent of male domination and the ways in which male supremacy has been maintained. From a feminist viewpoint, one of the main roles of education has been to maintain gender inequality.

Gendered language – reflecting wider society, school textbooks (and teachers) tend to use gendered language – ‘he’, ‘him’, ‘his’, ‘man’ and ‘men’ when referring to a person or people. This tends to downgrade women and make them invisible.

Gendered roles – school textbooks have tended to present males and females in traditional gender roles – for example, women as mothers and housewives. This is particularly evident in reading schemes from the 1960s and 1970s.

Gender stereotypes – reading schemes have also tended to present traditional gender stereotypes. For example an analysis of six reading schemes from the 1960s and 1970s found that:

Boys are presented as more adventurous than girls

As physically stronger

As having more choices

Girls are presented as more caring than boys

As more interested in domestic matters

As followers rather than leaders

Women in the curriculum – in terms of what’s taught in schools – the curriculum – women tend to be missing, in the background, or in second place. Feminists often argue that women have been ‘hidden from history’ – history has been the subject of men.

Subject choice – traditionally, female students have tended to avoid maths, science and technology. Certain subjects were often seen as ‘boys’ subjects’ and ‘girls’ subjects. Often girls subjects had lower status and lower market value

Discrimination – there is evidence of discrimination against girls in education simply because of their gender. For example, when the 11-plus exam was introduced in the 1940s, the pass mark was set lower for boys than for girls to make certain there roughly equal numbers of boys and girl sin grammar schools. In other words girls were artificially ‘failed’ so boys could ‘succeed’.

Further and higher education – traditionally the number of female students going on to further and higher education has been lower than for boys. There is evidence that teachers often gave boys more encouragement than girls to go to university (Stanworth, 1983).

Feminist perspectives – an evaluation – Feminist perspectives have been valuable for exposing gender inequality in education. Partly as a result of sociological research, a lot has changed – for example, much of the sexism in reading schemes has now disappeared. Today, women have overtaken men on most measures of educational attainment. Their grades at GCSE and A level are significantly higher than those of male students. And more women than men are going on to higher education. The concern now is the underachievement of boys rather than discrimination against girls. 

[socio-swag-blog]

MARXISM on the role of education

INTRODUCTION

The relationship between capitalism and the education system:

Bourgeoisie class own the means of production (land, factories, machinery, etc).

Proletariat class are exploited by capitalism - only having their labour to sell.

This exploitation leads to class antagonisms and conflict - potential for revolution.

The capitalist state (comprised of the bourgeoisie) learns that oppressing the proletariat by force is inefficient, and indoctrination by means of institutions such as religion and education into capitalist ideology is far more productive.

[socio-swag-blog]

Above: Louis Pierre Althusser (1971), French Marxist intellectual & philosopher

MARXISM on the role of education

LOUIS ALTHUSSER: THE IDEOLOGICAL STATE APPARATUS

Acording to Louis Althusser (1971), the state consists of two apparatuseswhich server to preserve Bourgeois power:

Repressive State Apparatuses - maintain Bourgeoisie power by force (police force, law courts and the military).

Ideological State Apparatuses - maintain Bourgeoisie power by controlling the proletariat’s values, ideas and beliefs (religion, media and the education system).

Althusser saw the education system as an essential Ideological State Apparatus that performs two functions:

Education reproduces inequality by imparting from one generation to another - consecutively failing working-class pupils.

Education legitimatizes inequality through capitalist ideology - inequality is inevitable and the working-classes deserve to be subordinate due to failure in a meritocratic system.

[socio-swag-blog]

MARXISM on the role of education

BOWLES & GINTIS: SCHOOLING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA

Marxist sociologists Bowles and Gintis (1976) argued that capitalism requires certain attitudes, behaviours and personality-types to accept their role as exploitable workers - and the education system produces an obedient workforce that will accept this inequality.

Bowles and Gintis’ Study:

237 New York high school students (primary data) and the findings of other studies (secondary data)

Their research discovered - schools reward submissive and compliant personality-types.

Students who demonstrate creativity and independence got lower grades - whereas disciplined and obedient students achieved higher.

Study Conclusion: Schools produce the obedient workers capitalism needs and hinders personal development

CORRESPONDENCE PRINCIPLE & HIDDEN CURRICULUM

Bowles and Gintis depicted education as “the long shadow of work”. They believed the parallels between work and school (social hierarchies, fragmented work-day, etc) are purposefully there to prepare pupils for the work place. This is the correspondence principle - which operates through the hidden curriculum.

The hidden curriculum is the ideological lessons we sub-consciously learn in capitalist education - competition, working for rewards not satisfaction, etc.

MERITOCRACY MYTH: LEGITIMIZATION OF INEQUALITY

To pacify the working class, the education system deceives them into believing their inequality is deserved because they failed in a fair meritocracy. However Bowles and Gintis describe this as a myth as evidence shows the main factor in determining wealth is not educational ability, but family and class background.

Meritocracy doesn’t exist and only serves to justify the privileges of the upper class as to avoid revolutionary threat.

[socio-swag-blog]

MARXISM on the role of education

WILLIS: LEARNING TO LABOUR

Paul Willis (1977) performed a study on working class pupils in education and their resistance to ideological indoctrination. As a Marxist, Willis wanted to see how education serves capitalism - however he has an interactionist approach - focusing on the the individual pupil’s interpretation and situation.

WILLIS’ STUDY: THE LAD’S COUNTER CULTURE

Qualitative -Participant Observation - Unstructured Interviews

12 working-class males

Lads establish counter-culture - reject conformity and obedience

They dismiss meritocratic ideology that working-class pupils can achieve middle-class occupations through hard work

Primary objective of “the lads” was to “have a laff”

Similarity between the lad’s culture and shop-floor culture - intellectual/academic work rejected and seen as effeminate, manual labour was seen as preferable. This is the irony of the lads:

Accustomed to boredom, the lads find ways to amuse themselves - expecting no satisfaction from work itself

Rebellious acts during education guarantee working-class occupations in their future

Their counter-culture and “resistance” to ideological indoctrination in education provides exactly what capitalism needs: a manual-labour force who will work in alienating, routine, boring jobs - who don’t seek satisfaction in work.

[socio-swag-blog]

MARXISM on the role of education

EVALUATION

Post-modernists - we live in a post-Fordist (assembly-line manufacturing less prevalent) economy, Bowles and Gintis’ correspondence principle less relevant today.

Willis’ research romanticized the lads - despite their anti-social behaviour and sexist attitudes

Willis’ research is unrepresentative - generalization of 12 participants?

Feminists - education system reproduces and legitimizes patriarchy, not just capitalism, Marxists ignore this

[socio-swag-blog]

Emile Durkheim

Alike Parsons, Emile is also a functionalist. Parsons developed many of his ideas from Durkheim's view.

Durkeim writing over 100 years ago that one of the main functions of education is to bind members of society together – this creates social unity and solidarity. Therefore like the family, education is seen as functional prerequisite because it passes on the culture of a society particularly its core values.