marxist view on education system

Marxist Perspective on Education

Charlotte Nickerson

Research Assistant at Harvard University

Undergraduate at Harvard University

Charlotte Nickerson is a student at Harvard University obsessed with the intersection of mental health, productivity, and design.

Learn about our Editorial Process

Saul Mcleod, PhD

Editor-in-Chief for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MRes, PhD, University of Manchester

Saul Mcleod, PhD., is a qualified psychology teacher with over 18 years of experience in further and higher education. He has been published in peer-reviewed journals, including the Journal of Clinical Psychology.

Olivia Guy-Evans, MSc

Associate Editor for Simply Psychology

BSc (Hons) Psychology, MSc Psychology of Education

Olivia Guy-Evans is a writer and associate editor for Simply Psychology. She has previously worked in healthcare and educational sectors.

On This Page:

Key Takeaways

• Marx and Engels themselves wrote little about education. Nonetheless, there is a long history of Marxists who have argued that education can both enforce and undermine capitalism.
• Sociologists Bowes and Gintis argue that education serves three main purposes: the reproduction of class inequality, its legitimization, and the creation of a compliant capitalist workforce.
• Althusser and his successor, Bordieu, believed that education served to benefit the ruling class both by spreading capitalist ideology and transmitting cultural capital, giving more legitimacy to those in the know.
• Critics have pointed out that those “exploited” by the education system are aware of their status, and do not blindly accept the values of educational institutions.

Marxist Views on Education

Although Marx and Engels wrote little on education, Marxism has educational implications that have been dissected by many. In essence, Marxists believe that education can both reproduce capitalism and have the potential to undermine it.

However, in the current system, education works mainly to maintain capitalism and reproduce social inequality (Cole, 2019).

According to Marx and Engels, the transformation of society will come about through class struggle and actions — such as the actions that the working-class proletariat can take to disempower the ruling bourgeoisie.

Marx and Engels emphasize the role of the spread of “enlightened” opinion throughout society as a way of creating class change.

Nonetheless, Marx and Engels both believed that fostering a full knowledge of what conditions under and what it would mean to overthrow capitalism was necessary to enact basic structural change.

Marx believed that the bourgeoisie failed to offer a real education; instead, education is used to spread bourgeois morals (Marx, 1847). Marx and Engles also, however, believed that workers are educated by doing labor and that education in schools should even be combined with labor.

The theorists felt that this combination of education with labor would increase awareness of the exploitative nature of capitalism.

Marxists were interested in two related issues regarding education under capitalism: firstly, how and to what extent education reproduces capitalism, and, secondly, the ways in which education in capitalist societies could undermine capitalism.

Bowes and Gintes (1976)

Bowes and Gintes (1976) were the two sociologists most associated with the Traditional Marxist perspective in education.

In the view of Marxist, educational systems in capitalist systems perform three functions of the elite, or bourgeoisie class: reproducing class inequality, legitimizing class inequality, and working in the interests of capitalist employers.

The Reproduction of Class Inequality

The process of reproducing class inequality works like this: Middle-class parents use their cultural and material capital to ensure that their children get into the best schools and then go on to achieve highly in those schools.

This can happen through giving children one-on-one instruction with tutors, paying for private school tuition, or, in extreme cases, making donations directly to elite schools that they want their children to attend.

All of this capital meandering means wealthier students tend to get the best education and then go on to get jobs in the middle class.

Meanwhile, working-class children, who are more likely to get a poor education, are funneled into working-class jobs.

The Legitimization of Class Inequality

Marxists argue that, while in reality money determines the quality of one”s education, schools spread a “myth of meritocracy” to convince students that they all have an equal chance of success and that one”s grade simply depends on their effort and ability.

Thus, if a student fails, it is their fault.

This has the net effect of controlling the working classes. Believing that they had a fair chance, the proletariat became less likely to rebel and attempt to change society through a Marxist revolutionary movement (Thompson, 2016).

Bowes and Gintis explain this concept through the idea that students in the capitalist education system are alienated by their labor. Students have a lack of control over their education and their course content.

School motivates, instead, by creating a system of grades and other external rewards. This creates often destructive competition among students who compete to achieve the best grades in what is seen, at least superficially, as a meritocratic system.

Reproduction and legitimization of social inequality – Althusser

Althusser saw himself as building on the conditions that Marx theorized necessary for capitalist production through emphasizing the role of ideology in the social relationships that permeate people’s lives.

He believed that all institutions, schools included, drilled the values of capitalism into pupils, perpetuating the economic system. In this way, he considered education to be part of the “ideological state apparatus.”

Althusser says this influence perpetrates education in multiple ways. This ideological state apparatus, according to Althusser, worked by injecting students with ideas that keep people unaware of their exploitation and make them easy to control.

Secondly, he believed that this injection of ideas produces complaints and an unquestioning workforce, passively accepting their roles (Ferguson, 2018).

Althusser’s successor, Pierre Bordieu (1971) also believed that the education system and other cultural institutions and practices indirectly benefited the bourgeoisie — the capital class — through passing down “cultural capital.”

Cultural capital is the accumulation of knowledge, behaviors, and skills that someone can use to demonstrate their competence and social status, allowing them to wield influence.

Working in The Interests of Capitalist Employers

Finally, Bowes and Gintis (1976) suggested that there is a correspondence between the values taught by schools and the ways in which the workplace operates.

They suggest that these values are taught through a so-called hidden curriculum , which consists of the things that students learn through the experience of attending school rather than the main curriculum thoughts at the school.

Some parallels between the values taught at school and those used to exploit workers in the workplace include:

The passive subservience of pupils to teachers, which corresponds to the passive subservience of workers to managers;

An acceptance of hierarchy – the authority of teachers and administrators over students — corresponding to the authority of managers over employees;

Motivation by external rewards (such as grades over learning), which corresponds to workers being motivated by wages rather than the job of a job.

Correspondence Principle

The Key concept in Bowes and Gintis’ Schooling in Capitalist America (1976) is that the reproduction of the social relations of production is facilitated and illustrated by the similarities between how social relations in education and in production work.

In order to reproduce the social relations of production, the education system must try to teach people to be properly subordinate and render them sufficiently confused that they are unable to gather together and take control of their material existence — such as through seizing the means of production.

Specifically, Bowes and Gintis (1976) argued, the education system helps develop everything from a student”s personal demeanor to their modes of self-presentation, self-image, and social-class identifications which are crucial to being seen as competent and hirable to future employers.

In particular, the social relations of education — the relationships between administrators and teachers, teachers and students, students and students, and students and their work — replicate a hierarchical division of labor. This means that there is a clear hierarchy of power from administrators to teachers to students.

The Myth of Meritocracy

One such aspect of the capitalist education system, according to Bowes and Gintis, is the “myth of meritocracy “.

While Marxists argue that class background and money determine how good of an education people get, the myth of meritocracy posits that everyone has an equal chance at success. Grades depend on effort and ability, and people’s failures are wholly their fault.

This casts a perception of a fair education system when, in reality, the system — and who succeeds or fails in it — is deeply rooted in class (Thompson, 2016).

Criticisms of the Marxist Perspective on Education

The Marxist perspectives on education have been criticized for several reasons.

The traditional Marxist perspective on education has been evaluated both positively and negative. On the affirmative side, there is a wealth of evidence that schools reproduce class inequality.

In particular, evidence suggests that those from the middle and upper classes do much better in education because the working classes are more likely to suffer from material and cultural deprivation. Meanwhile, the middle classes have high material and cultural capital, along with laws that directly benefit them.

Another point in favor of the Marxist view of education is the existence of private schools. In these schools, the very wealthiest families can buy a better education for their families. This gives their children a substantially greater chance of attending an elite university.

There is also strong evidence for the reproduction of class inequality in elite jobs, such as medicine, law, and journalism. A disproportionately high number of people in these professions were educated in private institutions and come from families who are, in turn, highly educated (Thompson, 2016).

On the other hand, sociologists such as Henry Giroux (1983) have criticized the traditional Marxist view on education as being too deterministic. He argued that working classes are not entirely molded by the capitalist system and do not accept everything they are taught blindly. Paul Willis’ study of the working-class “lads” is one example of lower-class youths actively rejecting the values taught by education.

There is also less evidence that pupils believe school is fair than evidence that pupils believe school is unfair. The “Lads” that Paul Willis studied (2017) were well aware that the educational system was biased toward the middle classes, and many people in poorly-funded schools know that they are receiving a lesser quality of education than those in private schools.

• The Functionalist Perspective of Education

Bourdieu, P., & Bordieu, P. (1971). Formes et degrés de la conscience du chômage dans l”Algérie coloniale. Manpower and Unemployment Research in Africa , 36-44.

Bowes, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in Captalist America.

Cole, M. (2019). Theresa May, the hostile environment and public pedagogies of hate and threat: The case for a future without borders . Routledge.

Ferguson, S. (2018). Social reproduction: what’s the big idea? Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis. Harvard Educational Review, 53 (3), 257-293.

Giroux, H. (1983). Theories of reproduction and resistance in the new sociology of education: A critical analysis.  Harvard Educational Review ,  53 (3), 257-293.

Marx, K., Engels, F. (1847). Manifesto of the communist party .

Thompson, M. (2016). Assess the Marxist View of the Role of Education in Society .

Willis, P. (2017). Learning to labour: How working class kids get working class jobs . Routledge.

education, community-building and change

Karl Marx and education

Karl marx and education. what significance does marx have for educators and animateurs today an introduction and assessment by barry burke..

contents: introduction · life · Karl Marx as a thinker · Karl Marx and the class struggle · the communist manifesto · Karl Marx’s relevance to knowledge and education · further reading · links · how to cite this article

Karl Marx never wrote anything directly on education – yet his influence on writers, academics, intellectuals and educators who came after him has been profound. The power of his ideas has changed the way we look at the world. Whether you accept his analysis of society or whether you oppose it, he cannot be ignored. As Karl Popper, a fierce opponent of Marxism, has claimed ‘all modern writers are indebted to Marx, even if they do not know it’.

Karl Marx was born in Trier on May 5, 1818. He studied at the universities of Bonn, Berlin, and Jena. His early writings for, and editorship of, the Cologne newspaper Rheinische Zeitung brought him quickly into conflict with the government. He was critical of social conditions and existing political arrangements. In 1843 after only a year in post, Marx was compelled to resign as editor. Soon afterwards the paper was also forced to stop publication. Marx then went to Paris (where he first met Engels). His radicalism had come to be recognizably ‘communistic’. His revolutionary analysis and activity led to him being ordered to leave Paris in 1845. Karl Marx went onto settle in Brussels and began to organize Communist Correspondence Committees in a number of European cities. This led to the organizing of the Communist League (and the writing of the Communist Manifesto with Engels) (see below). With the unrest and revolutionary activity of 1848, Marx was again forced to leave a country. He returned to Paris and then to the Rhineland. In Cologne he set up and edited the Neue Rheinische Zeitung, and continued organizing. In 1849 Marx was arrested and tried on a charge of incitement to armed insurrection. He got off, but was expelled from Germany.

Karl Marx spent the remainer of his life in England, arriving in London in 1849 (see Karl Marx in Soho ). His most productive years were spent in the Reading Room of the British Museum where much of his research and writing took place. He wrote a great deal although hardly any of it was published in English until after his death in 1883.

Karl Marx as a thinker

Marx’s intellectual output is difficult to categorize for whilst his major work, Das Kapital, translated into English as Capital, is a work of economics, he is more popularly recognised as a social scientist and a political philosopher. As C.Wright Mills has explained: “as with most complicated thinkers, there is no one Marx. The various presentations of his work which we can construct from his books, pamphlets, articles, letters written at different times in his own development, depend upon our point of interest …; every student must earn his own Marx.” So today, we have Marxist anthropology, Marxist literary criticism, Marxist aesthetics, Marxist pedagogy, Marxist cultural studies, Marxist sociology etc. His intellectual output lasted from the early 1840s to the early l880s and over that long period of 40 years produced a number of works that have enriched the thinking of those who came after him.

There are many who see different stages in the thinking of Karl Marx. His earlier works are sometimes referred to as showing a humanistic Marx, a philosophical Marx who was concerned with the role of the individual, with what human beings are actually like, with the relationship between consciousness and existence. The later Marx, we are told, wrote as a social scientist, a political economist who was more concerned with social structure than with individuals. It is possible to read this into the work of Karl Marx but it is also possible to see a basic thread going right through all his work. One of the reasons for this is that one of his major works, the Grundrisse or Outlines, described by David McLellan, Marx’s biographer as “the most fundamental of all Marx’s writings” was not published in English until the 1970s. It is quite easy, therefore, to see why there are different perspectives on Karl Marx, why my Marx can be different from your Marx.

Karl Marx on the class struggle

So what was it that made Karl Marx so important? At the cornerstone of his thinking is the concept of the class struggle. He was not unique in discovering the existence of classes. Others had done this before him. What Marx did that was new was to recognize that the existence of classes was bound up with particular modes of production or economic structure and that the proletariat, the new working class that Capitalism had created, had a historical potential leading to the abolition of all classes and to the creation of a classless society. He maintained that “the history of all existing society is a history of class struggle”. Each society, whether it was tribal, feudal or capitalist was characterized by the way its individuals produced their means of subsistence, their material means of life, how they went about producing the goods and services they needed to live. Each society created a ruling class and a subordinate class as a result of their mode of production or economy. By their very nature the relationship between these two was antagonistic. Marx referred to this as the relations of production. Their interests were not the same. The feudal economy was characterized by the existence of a small group of lords and barons that later developed into a landed aristocracy and a large group of landless peasants. The capitalist economy that superseded it was characterized by a small group of property owners who owned the means of production i.e. the factories, the mines and the mills and all the machinery within them. This group was also referred to as the bourgeoisie or capitalist class. Alongside them was a large and growing working class. He saw the emergence of this new propertyless working class as the agent of its own self emancipation. It was precisely the working class, created and organized into industrial armies, that would destroy its creator and usher in a new society free from exploitation and oppression. “What the bourgeoisie, therefore, produces, above all, is its own grave-diggers”.

The Communist Manifesto

These ideas first saw the light of day as an integrated whole in the Communist Manifesto which Marx wrote with his compatriot Frederick Engels in 1847/8. The Manifesto begins with a glowing tribute to the historical and revolutionary role of the bourgeoisie. It points out how the bourgeoisie had totally altered the face of the earth as it revolutionized the means of production, constantly expanded the market for its products, created towns and cities, moved vast populations from rural occupations into factories and centralized political administration. Karl Marx sums up the massive achievements of the bourgeoisie by declaring that “during its rule of scarce one hundred years (it) has created more massive and more colossal productive forces than have all preceding generations together. Subjection of Nature’s forces to Man, machinery, application of chemistry to industry and agriculture, steam-navigation, railways, electric telegraphs, clearing of whole continents for cultivation, canalization of rivers, whole populations conjured out of the ground – what earlier century had even a presentiment that such productive forces slumbered in the lap of social labour?”. However, the creation of these productive forces had the effect, not of improving the lot of society, but of periodically creating a situation of crisis. Commercial crises as a result of over-production occurred more and more frequently as the productive forces were held back by the bourgeois organization of production and exchange.

But along with the development of the bourgeoisie who own the means of production we find the development of the proletariat – the propertyless working class. With the evolution of modern industry, Marx pointed out that workmen became factory fodder, appendages to machines. Men were crowded into factories with army-like discipline, constantly watched by overseers and at the whim of individual manufacturers. Increasing competition and commercial crises led to fluctuating wages whilst technological improvement led to a livelihood that was increasingly precarious. The result was a growth in the number of battles between individual workmen and individual employers whilst collisions took on more and more “the character of collisions between two classes”. Marx and Engels characterize the growth of the working class as a “more or less veiled civil war raging within existing society” but unlike previous historical movements which were minority movements, the working class movement is “the self-conscious independent movement of the immense majority, in the interests of the immense majority”. The conclusion they drew from this was that the overthrow of bourgeois supremacy and a victory for the working class would not, therefore, produce another minority ruling class but “in place of the old bourgeois society, with its classes and class antagonisms, we shall have an association, in which the free development of each is the condition of the free development of all”.

The Communist Manifesto contains within it, the basic political theory of Marxism – a theory that Marx was to unfold, reshape and develop for the rest of his life. Without doubt, the Manifesto is sketchy and over-simplistic but its general principles were never repudiated by Marx although those parts that had become antiquated he was only too ready to reject or modify.

For instance, the two-class model which has always been associated with Marx was never an accurate picture of his theory. Marx later made it quite clear that within the bourgeoisie, there were a whole number of factions existing based on different types of property such as finance, industry, land and commerce. He was aware of the growth of the middle classes, situated midway between the workers on the one side and the capitalists and landowners on the other. He regarded them as resting with all their weight upon the working class and at the same time increasing the security and power of the upper class. At the other end of the spectrum, he explains the existence of different strata of the working class such as the nomad population moving around the country, the paupers, the unemployed or industrial reserve army and what has become known as the aristocracy of labour, the skilled artisans. All of these strata made up a working class created by capitalist accumulation.

However, why is it that Marx felt that the existence of classes meant that the relationship between them was one of exploitation? In feudal societies, exploitation often took the form of the direct transfer of produce from the peasantry to the aristocracy. Serfs were compelled to give a certain proportion of their production to their aristocratic masters, or had to work for a number of days each month in the lord’s fields to produce crops consumed by the lord and his retinue. In capitalist societies, the source of exploitation is less obvious, and Marx devoted much attention to trying to clarify its nature. In the course of the working day, Marx reasoned, workers produce more than is actually needed by employers to repay the cost of hiring them. This surplus value, as he called it, is the source of profit, which capitalists were able to put to their own use. For instance, a group of workers in a widget factory might produce a hundred widgets a day. Selling half of them provides enough income for the manufacturer to pay the workers’ wages. income from the sale of the other half is then taken for profit. Marx was struck by the enormous inequalities this system of production created. With the development of modern industry, wealth was created on a scale never before imagined but the workers who produced that wealth had little access to it. They remained relatively poor while the wealth accumulated by the propertied class grew out of all proportion. In addition, the nature of the work became increasingly dull, monotonous and physically wearing to the workforce who became increasingly alienated from both the products they were creating, from their own individuality and from each other as human beings.

Karl Marx’s relevance to knowledge and education

Karl Marx made it clear that “life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by life” and what he meant by life was actual living everyday material activity. Human thought or consciousness was rooted in human activity not the other way round as a number of philosophers felt at the time. What this meant was the way we went about our business, the way we were organized in our daily life was reflected in the way we thought about things and the sort of world we created. The institutions we built, the philosophies we adhered to, the prevailing ideas of the time, the culture of society, were all determined to some extent or another by the economic structure of society. This did not mean that they were totally determined but were quite clearly a spin-off from the economic base of society. The political system, the legal system, the family, the press, the education system were all rooted, in the final analysis, to the class nature of society, which in turn was a reflection of the economic base. Marx maintained that the economic base or infrastructure generated or had built upon it a superstructure that kept it functioning. The education system, as part of the superstructure, therefore, was a reflection of the economic base and served to reproduce it. This did not mean that education and teaching was a sinister plot by the ruling class to ensure that it kept its privileges and its domination over the rest of the population. There were no conspirators hatching devious schemes. It simply meant that the institutions of society, like education, were reflections of the world created by human activity and that ideas arose from and reflected the material conditions and circumstances in which they were generated.

This relationship between base and superstructure has been the subject of fierce debate between Marxists for many years. To what extent is the superstructure determined by the economic base? How much of a reflection is it? Do the institutions that make up the superstructure have any autonomy at all? If they are not autonomous, can we talk about relative autonomy when we speak about the institutions of society? There have been furious debates on the subject and whole forests have been decimated as a result of the need to publish contributions to the debate.

I now want to turn to Marx’s contribution to the theory of knowledge and to the problem of ideology. In his book, The German Ideology, Marx maintained that “the class which is the dominant material force in society is at the same time its dominant intellectual force”. What he meant by that is that the individuals who make up the ruling class of any age determine the agenda. They rule as thinkers, as producers of ideas that get noticed. They control what goes by the name “common sense”. Ideas that are taken as natural, as part of human nature, as universal concepts are given a veneer of neutrality when, in fact, they are part of the superstructure of a class-ridden society. Marx explained that “each new class which puts itself in the place of the one ruling before it, is compelled, simply in order to achieve its aims, to represent its interest as the common interest of all members of society i.e. ..to give its ideas the form of universality and to represent them as the only rational and universally valid ones”. Ideas become presented as if they are universal, neutral, common sense. However, more subtly, we find concepts such as freedom, democracy, liberty or phrases such as “a fair days work for a fair days pay” being banded around by opinion makers as if they were not contentious. They are, in Marxist terms, ideological constructs, in so far as they are ideas serving as weapons for social interests. They are put forward for people to accept in order to prop up the system.

What Marx and Marxists would say is that ideas are not neutral. They are determined by the existing relations of production, by the economic structure of society. Ideas change according to the interests of the dominant class in society. Antonio Gramsci coined the phrase “ideological hegemony” to describe the influence the ruling class has over what counts as knowledge. For Marxists, this hegemony is exercised through institutions such as education, or the media, which the Marxist philosopher and sociologist, Louis Althusser referred to as being part of what he called the Ideological State Apparatus. The important thing to note about this is that it is not to be regarded as part of a conspiracy by the ruling class. It is a natural effect of the way in which what we count as knowledge is socially constructed. The ideology of democracy and liberty, beliefs about freedom of the individual and competition are generated historically by the mode of production through the agency of the dominant class. They are not neutral ideas serving the common good but ruling class ideas accepted by everyone as if they were for the common good.

This brings us back to the notion of education as part of the super-structural support for the economic status quo. If this is the case, there are a number of questions that need to be asked. The first is can society be changed by education? If not, why not? Secondly, can education be changed and if so, how?

Further reading

Biographies:.

The following biographies are good starting points:

McLelland, D. (1995 Karl Marx: A biography 3e, London: Macmillan. 464 pages. Something of a standard work and includes a postscript, ‘Marx today’.

Wheen, F. (1999) Karl Marx , London: Fouth Estate. pages. Highly readable new biography that picks up on recent scholarship.

Marx – key texts

Go the Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels Internet Archive for online versions of Marx’s key works.

Karl Marx and Fredrick Engels Internet Archive – Excellent collection of primary and secondary works. Includes pieces on various colleagues and family.

In Defence of Marxism Argues for Marxist analysis it’s relevance to current social and political questions.

Marxism Page – links and resources.

Marx and Engel’s Writings – collection of Marx and Engels’ writings in history, sociology, and political theory.

Acknowledgements : Picture: Karl Marx, sourced from Wikemedia Commons from International Institute of Social History in Amsterdam, Netherlands. Listed as being in the public domain.

How to cite this article : Burke, Barry (2000) ‘Karl Marx and informal education’, The encyclopedia of pedagogy and informal education , www.infed.org/thinkers/et-marx.htm . Last update: January 03, 2013

Prepared by Barry Burke © 2000

Last Updated on October 19, 2019 by infed.org

• Tools and Resources
• Customer Services
• Original Language Spotlight
• Alternative and Non-formal Education 
• Cognition, Emotion, and Learning
• Curriculum and Pedagogy
• Education and Society
• Education, Change, and Development
• Education, Cultures, and Ethnicities
• Education, Gender, and Sexualities
• Education, Health, and Social Services
• Educational Administration and Leadership
• Educational History
• Educational Politics and Policy
• Educational Purposes and Ideals
• Educational Systems
• Educational Theories and Philosophies
• Globalization, Economics, and Education
• Languages and Literacies
• Professional Learning and Development
• Research and Assessment Methods
• Technology and Education
• Share This Facebook LinkedIn Twitter

Article contents

Marxism and educational theory.

• Mike Cole Mike Cole University of East London
• https://doi.org/10.1093/acrefore/9780190264093.013.105
• Published online: 25 January 2019

While Marx and Engels wrote little on education, the educational implications of Marxism are clear. Education both reproduces capitalism and has the potential to undermine it. With respect to reproduction, it is informative to look at key texts by Althusser and Bowles and Gintis (and the latter’s legacy). As far as challenging capitalism is concerned, considerations are given to both theoretical developments and practical attempts to confront neoliberalism and enact socialist principles, the combination of which Marxists refer to as praxis. There have been constant challenges to Marxism since its conception, and in conclusion we look at two contemporary theories—critical race theory and its primacy of “race” over class—and intersectionality which has a tendency to marginalize class.

• educational theory
• education and the reproduction of capitalism
• education and the undermining of capitalism
• and Saunders
• contemporary theoretical challenges to Marxism

You do not currently have access to this article

Please login to access the full content.

Access to the full content requires a subscription

Printed from Oxford Research Encyclopedias, Education. Under the terms of the licence agreement, an individual user may print out a single article for personal use (for details see Privacy Policy and Legal Notice).

date: 04 May 2024

• Cookie Policy
• Privacy Policy
• Legal Notice
• Accessibility
• [66.249.64.20|185.80.150.64]
• 185.80.150.64

Character limit 500 /500

• Books, Journals, Papers
• Current Events
• Life Around The World
• Research Methods
• Sociology Theorists
• Functionalism
• Postmodernism
• Social Constructionism
• Structuralism
• Symbolic Interactionism
• Sociology of Crime & Deviance
• Sociology of Art
• Sociology of Food
• Sociology of Disability
• Sociology of Economics
• Sociology of Education
• Sociology of Family
• Sociology of Gender
• Sociology of Health
• Sociology of Identity
• Sociology of Ideology
• Sociology of Inequalities
• Sociology of Film
• Sociology of Gaming
• Sociology of Literature
• Sociology of Music
• Sociology of Nature & Environment
• Sociology of Politics
• Sociology of Power
• Sociology of Race & Ethnicity
• Sociology of Religion
• Sociology of Sexuality
• Sociology of Technology
• Sociology of Violence & Conflict
• Sociology of Work
• Privacy Policy

The Marxist View of Education

Marxism, a socio-political theory developed by Karl Marx, offers a critical perspective on various aspects of society, including education . According to Marxists, education is not a neutral institution but rather a tool used by the ruling class to maintain their power and perpetuate social inequality . This blog post will delve into the Marxist view of education and its implications.

The Role of Education in Capitalist Society

In a capitalist society, Marxists argue that education serves the interests of the ruling class, or the bourgeoisie. They believe that the education system is designed to reproduce and reinforce the existing social and economic inequalities. This is achieved through various mechanisms, such as:

You might also like

City Technology Colleges: An Outline and Explanation in Sociology

Laddish Behaviour and Competitive Pressure in Education

• Reproduction of Class Divisions: Education is seen as a means to reproduce the existing class divisions in society. The curriculum, teaching methods, and assessment practices are all influenced by the dominant ideology of the ruling class, which perpetuates the status quo.
• Legitimization of Inequality: Education plays a role in legitimizing social inequality by promoting the idea that success and failure are a result of individual effort and ability, rather than structural factors. This ideology serves to justify the unequal distribution of resources and opportunities.
• Social Control: Education also acts as a mechanism of social control, shaping the values , beliefs, and behaviors of individuals to conform to the needs of the capitalist system. It discourages critical thinking and promotes obedience to authority.

The Hidden Curriculum

One of the key concepts in the Marxist view of education is the notion of the “hidden curriculum.” This refers to the implicit messages and values that are transmitted to students through the education system, beyond the formal curriculum. The hidden curriculum reinforces the dominant ideology and prepares students for their future roles as workers in a capitalist society.

For example, the emphasis on punctuality, discipline, and obedience in schools mirrors the expectations of the workplace. Students are taught to accept authority and follow instructions without questioning. This prepares them to become compliant workers who will not challenge the exploitative nature of the capitalist system.

Education as a Commodity

Marxists also view education as a commodity within the capitalist system. They argue that education has become increasingly commercialized, with the rise of for-profit schools and the influence of corporate interests in educational policy. Education is seen as a means to generate profit, rather than a public good that should be accessible to all.

This commodification of education further exacerbates social inequalities. High-quality education becomes a privilege for those who can afford it, while marginalized communities are left with substandard educational opportunities. This perpetuates the cycle of poverty and reinforces existing social divisions.

Challenges and Alternatives

Marxists recognize the challenges in transforming the education system to address these issues. However, they argue for the need to challenge the capitalist structure that underpins education and advocate for a more equitable and democratic system.

Some alternatives proposed by Marxists include:

• Democratic Education: Promoting a more participatory and inclusive form of education that empowers students and allows them to actively engage in the learning process.
• Socialist Education: Advocating for an education system that is guided by socialist principles, prioritizing the needs of the collective over individual gain.
• Critical Pedagogy: Encouraging critical thinking and analysis of social issues within the classroom, enabling students to question and challenge the existing power structures.

While the Marxist view of education may be controversial and subject to criticism, it offers a thought-provoking analysis of the role of education in perpetuating social inequality within a capitalist society. Understanding these perspectives can contribute to a more nuanced and comprehensive understanding of the complexities of the education system.

Mr Edwards has a PhD in sociology alongside 10 years of experience in sociological knowledge

Related Stories

Learn about City Technology Colleges (CTCs) and their impact on the education system and society. Explore the concept, purpose, key...

Learn about laddish behaviour and competitive pressure in education. Understand the definition, characteristics, and relationship between laddish behaviour and competitive...

The Concept of Dictatorship of the Proletariat in Sociology

Learn about the concept of the dictatorship of the proletariat in sociology. Coined by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, this...

The Phenomenon of “Diploma Disease”: Balancing Formal Education and Practical Skills

Diploma disease is a sociological concept that highlights the potential negative consequences of overemphasizing formal education over practical skills and...

The Marxist View of the Media

The marxist view of religion.

The Significance of Educational Policies and the Impact of Globalisation

Get the latest sociology, recommended.

The Functionalist View of Religion in Sociology

Understanding Collective Bargaining in Sociology

Popular story.

Understanding Clans in Sociology

The functionalist perspective on gender in sociology, pierre bourdieu’s symbolic violence: an outline and explanation, what is a social actor exploring the concept in sociology, understanding social class inequality: a sociological perspective.

Easy Sociology makes sociology as easy as possible. Our aim is to make sociology accessible for everybody. © 2023 Easy Sociology

© 2023 Easy Sociology

MIA : Subjects : Education:

Marxism & Education   Index to the works of Marxists and others on education, cognitive psychology and child development. Because Marxists have tended to approach the whole range of psychological issues — development, feeling, neurosis, pathology, personality and character — from the point of view of cognitive and linguistic development, much of the material in this subject archive is also found in the more comprehensive Psychology Subject Archive . Likewise, for Marxists, there has never been a sharp line between social and individual development, so social theory penetrates deeply into both psychology and educational theory. The Marxist approach to education is broadly constructivist , and emphasises activity , collaboration and critique , rather than passive absorption of knowledge, emulation of elders and conformism; it is student-centred rather than teacher centred, but recognises that education cannot transcend the problems and capabilities of the society in which it is located. This archive lists the works of Marxist and some non-Marxist writers on teaching and learning to be found on the Marxists Internet Archive.   Early ideas on Socialist Education Theses On Feuerbach #3 , Marx 1845 Communist Manifesto , Marx 1848 Juvenile and Child Labour , International Workingmen's Association 1866 On General Education , Speech by Marx August 1869 Economic Manuscripts of 1861-63 , Marx Section 9 (Factory Acts) , Capital, Chapter 15, Marx 1867 Section 9 (Factory Acts) , Capital, Chapter 15, Marx 1867 Productive Labour , Capital, Chapter 16, Marx 1867 On Education , Mikhail Bakunin 1869 The Struggle of Woman for Education , Bebel 1879 The Socialist System of Education , Bebel 1879 Socialism and Education , May Wood Simmons 1901 The Material Basis of Education , Lena Morrow Lewis 1912 Self-Education of the Workers , Anatoly Lunacharsky 1918 Independent Working Class Education – Thoughts and Suggestions , Eden and Cedar Paul 1918 Bolshevism v Democracy in Education , Eden and Cedar Paul 1918 Education of the Masses , Sylvia Pankhurst, 1918 Men or Machines , Gramsci 1916 On the Organisation of Education and of Culture , Gramsci 1923 >-->   Soviet Ideas on Education Decree on Child Welfare , Alexandra Kollontai 1918 To All Who Teach , Anatoly Lunacharsky 1918 Church and School in the Soviet Republic , Nikolai Bukharin, 1919 Communism and Education , from The ABC of Communism , by Bukharin and Preobrazhensky 1920     Lenin on Education What Can be Done for Public Education? , Lenin 1914 Speech at first All-Russian Congress on Education , Lenin 1918 To People's Commissariat of Education , Lenin 1919 Work of People's Commissariat for Education , Lenin 1921 Reports on Soviet Education Russian Children , from Six Red Months in Russia , Louise Bryant 1918 Soviet Education , from Russia in 1919 , Arthur Ransome Education and Culture , My Disillusionment in Russia , Emma Goldman 1922 Children of Revolution , Anna-Louise Strong 1925 Education in Soviet Russia , The First Time in History , Anna-Louise Strong 1925 The Revolution in Education and Culture , Soviet Russia: a living record and a history , Wm Chamberlin 1929 Family Relations Under the Soviets , Trotsky 1932 Education in Stalinist Russia On Communist Education. Selected Speeches and Articles (1926-1945) , M. I. Kalinin Learning to Live , A. S. Makarenko 1936-1938 The Road to Life (An Epic of Education), Volume 1 , A. S. Makarenko 1933-1935 The Road to Life (An Epic of Education), Volume 2 . Lectures to Parents , A. S. Makarenko 1937 Problems of Soviet School Education , A. S. Makarenko Makarenko: His Life and Work , A. S. Makarenko Makarenko (1888-1939) reflects some ideas which were characteristic of Stalin's Soviet Union. Nonetheless, his ideas were very radical and are much admired by progressive educators to this day, especially in the education of disadvantaged children. The psychologists of the Vygotsky School, whose writings predominate in what follows, were a minority current in the Soviet Union; they were not allowed to travel or publish overseas and their influence on the Soviet education system was limited. Early Childhood and Play Play and its role in the mental development of the Child , Vygotsky 1933 Tool and Symbol in Child Development , Vygotsky 1930 --> The Construction of Reality in the Child , Jean Piaget 1955 Piaget's theory of child language and thought , Vygotsky 1934 Comment on Vygotsky , Piaget 1962 The Child and his Behavior , Luria 1930 The Prehistory of Written Language , Vygotsky 1930 --> The Origins of Thought in the Child, Henri Wallon 1947 Genetic Psychology , Henri Wallon 1956 Summerhill - A Radical Approach to Child Rearing, Erich Fromm 1960 The Psychological Development of the Child , Henri Wallon 1965 Stages in the Mental Development of the Child , Elkonin 1971 Mental Development in Twins , from Soviet Psychology , Luria 1979 --> Mental Development --> The development of Perception and Attention and --> Mastery of Memory and Thinking , Vygotsky 1930 --> Verbal Regulation of Behavior , and Mechanisms of the Brain , Luria 1979 from Soviet Psychology Introduction to Luria's The Making of Mind , by Michael Cole, 1979 --> Adolescence and Ethical Development Ethical Behavior , from Educational Psychology Vygotsky 1926 Esthetic Behavior , from Educational Psychology Vygotsky 1926 Development of thinking and concept formation in adolescence , Vygotsky 1931 Imagination and creativity of the adolescent , Vygotsky 1931 Vygotsky's tool-and-result methodology , Fred Newman and Lois Holzman Society and Individual Development The Psychological and Sociological Study of the Child , Henri Wallon 1947 The Influence of Social Factors in Child Development , Erich Fromm 1958 Human Nature and Social Theory , Erich Fromm 1969 Man in Marxist Theory , Lucian Seve 1974 Cognitive Development: Its Social and Cultural Foundations , Luria 1976 Cognition and Foundations of Learning Internalization of Higher Psychological Functions , Vygotsky 1930 Interaction between Learning and Development , Vygotsky 1930 --> The Genetic Roots of Thought and Speech , Vygotsky 1934 Thought and Word , Vygotsky 1934 Activity and Knowledge , Ilyenkov 1974 Activity and Consciousness , Leontyev 1977 Activity, Consciousness, and Personality 1978: Leontev's Introduction     Marxism and Psychological Science ,     Activity and Personality ,     Motives, Emotions, and Personality . Personal account of Soviet Psychology , Luria 1979 The Historical Context , Introduction to Soviet Psychology , Luria 1979 Vygotsky , from Soviet Psychology , Luria 1979 Cultural Differences in Thinking , from Soviet Psychology , Luria 1979 --> Much Learning does Not Teach Understanding , Vasili Davydov Types of Generalization in Instruction: Logical and Psychological Problems in the Structuring of School Curricula , Vasili Davydov Biography of Vasily Davydov and an outline of his ideas , Vladimir Kudryavtsev   John Dewey on Education Interest in Relation to Training of the Will , 1896 My Pedagogic Creed , 1896 The School and Social Progress , 1899 The Child and the Curriculum , 1902 Education as Growth , 1916 Experience and Thinking , 1916 The Need of a Theory of Experience , 1938 Criteria of Experience , 1938   See also: Hegel on Education Pedagogy of the Oppressed , Paulo Freire 1968   History Archive Subjects Section Encyclopedia of Marxism Cross-Language Section What's New? Contact Us Comments to Andy Blunden M.I.A. Home Page | MCA Discussion Forum  

Marxist Perspective on Education – Explained with 980 Words

Marxist perspective on Education: Education is a universal phenomenon. It can exist within distinct, formal organizations like schools and colleges, but an also simultaneously exist in other forms in the confines of our home or other immediate environments. There exist multiple perceptions on education and its effectiveness in our society. An amalgamation of various social theories and postulations by numerous social theorists are used to explain the role of education in the lives of individuals. This paper will be primarily focusing on the Marxist perspective on education and how it plays into the capitalist society that we are all a part of.

Introduction

“Education is perceived as a place where children can develop according to their unique needs and potential. It is also perceived as one of the best means of achieving greater social equality. Many would say that the purpose of education should be to develop every individual to their full potential, and give them a chance to achieve as much in life as their natural abilities allow (meritocracy). Few would argue that any education system accomplishes this goal perfectly. Some take a particularly negative view, arguing that the education system is designed with the intention of causing the social reproduction of inequality” (Satapathy, n.d., p. 7). As we all know, before the institutionalized education begins, which includes an organization of individuals, syllabuses etc., there is also learning and education that starts from one’s immediate surroundings, like home, family, neighborhood, lifestyles, religion etc. This paper will delve deeper into how our educational systems prepare us or the lives in the outside world encompassed by capitalistic ideals; through a Marxist perspective.

Marxist Perspective on Education

Marxist theory is derived from the ideas and accounts of a German sociologist named Karl Marx. The Marxist perspective expanded to a great extent through his influential works. He sought to explain the inequalities and perpetuated differences in society which led to class conflict; for which the economic system of capitalism was blamed. The Marxist theory believes that the educational system that exists in the current capitalistic society is highly problematic. They believe that the curriculum does not believe in allowing the children to acquire skills for individual growth but rather seeks to create products that are meant to be forcefully assimilated into the society, only to maintain the status quo.

“Education in its present form makes the subject class submit to ruling class ideology. Education in this case is found important in order to produce behavior that makes it possible for the majority of the subject class to fit into the lowest levels of the division of labour. As noted by Althusser cited by Haralambos (1986); “Education not only transmits a general ruling class ideology which justifies and legitimates the capitalist system; it produces the attitudes and behavior required by the major groups in the division of labour. It teaches workers to accept and submit to their exploitation, it teaches the ‘agents of exploitation and repression’, the managers, administrators and politicians, how to practice their crafts and rule the work-force as agents of the ruling class”” (Haralambos, 1986, p. 180 as cited in Samkanje, 2015, p. 1767).

I agree with this view as according to the Marxist perspective, the capitalistic society seeks to generate workers for the purpose of generating labor. The curriculum’s only objective being this, views students as a homogenous crowd and neglects the existence of individuality, uniqueness, and personal self-expression. In the current educational system, students are forced to fit a predesigned mold that is often associated with success, leading to any deviation from this pattern viewed in a poor light and associated with failure. The grading system that exists in modern educational systems creates a form of alienation in the minds of children where their young minds are rid of any ideas that deviate from the assigned curriculum enforced on them. The Marxist perspective explains how the educational systems further perpetuate inequality, rather than seek to ensure individual growth.

Ezewu (1990) argues that education by its nature is a cultural process. He further notes that the basic aim of education should be the transmission of cultural heritage, preparation for adulthood and fitting into the community. This means that when dealing with children in Early Childhood Development (E.C.D) classes, the teacher has to be aware of the culture of the community. The teacher should be able to make use of the local environment, which is part of their culture for children to understand and develop concepts. Such environment includes the language that the teacher uses, since language is part of culture. Other roles of education include political role and economic role. Education may be used as an oppressive tool. Much depends on the nature of the curriculum” (Samkanje, 2015, p. 1768).

While I agree with the fact that the majority of the methods used in modern education are counterproductive to uplifting young minds, I also believe that the enemy in the situation is not the concept of education, but the system that enforces it and the values they hold. I believe that education has the power to spread knowledge and awareness and is an important factor in instigating a social change. The same tool that is being used by the unequal capitalist society can be used against them. Education should not be limited within the constraints of a particular academic curriculum and individuals must be encouraged to broaden their spectrum of knowledge by having access to other informational sources, such as, the internet, social media, books and articles from authors with various perspectives on social issues etc. The Marxist perspective uses the ability to educate individuals, and do a wonderful job in highlighting the problems with the current educational system, and this information can be utilized to develop a more equal, broader and interdisciplinary educational system.

Samkange, W. (2015). Examining the Role and Purpose of Education Within the Marxist Perspective, 1765–1769.

Satapathy, S. S. (n.d.). Sociology of Education . DDCE. https://ddceutkal.ac.in/Syllabus/MA_SOCIOLOGY/Paper-16.pdf.

Angela Roy is currently pursuing her majors in Sociology and minors in International Relations and History, as a part of her BA Liberal Arts Honors degree in SSLA, Pune. She has always been driven to play a part in changing and correcting the social evils that exist in society. With a driving passion for breaking down harmful societal norms and social injustices, she seeks to learn and understand the different social institutions that exist in society like family, marriage, religion and kinship, and how they influence the workings and functioning of various concepts like gender, sexuality and various types of socializations in an individual’s life. She envisions herself to play a vital role in building safe places for today’s marginalized communities and creating a world that is characterized by equity and inclusiveness, free of discrimination and exploitative behaviors.

ReviseSociology

A level sociology revision – education, families, research methods, crime and deviance and more!

Evaluating the Marxist Perspective on Education

Last Updated on December 6, 2022 by Karl Thompson

Marxists argue that the education system performs the following functions…

• It is the ideological state apparatus
• It creates a passive and subservient workforce
• It reproduces class inequality
• It legitimates (justifies) class inequality

You might like to review the Marxist Perspective on Education before reading this post. Once you’ve fully understood the key ideas of Marxism on education, you should be able to use the items below to evaluate each of the above claims…

Item A: Statistics on Educational Achievement by Social Class Background

The latest research study which suggests children from a lower social class background are disadvantated in education compared to their wealthy peers

Bright students from disadvantaged backgrounds are falling behind after their GCSEs and are almost half as likely to achieve three A-levels as their better-off peers, according to research published on Tuesday.

Poorer youngsters’ life chances are further compromised as they are considerably less likely to study the sort of A-levels that will help them get into leading universities.

The report by Oxford University’s department of education found that just 35% of disadvantaged students (distinguished by their being on free school meals) who were identified as highly able at the age of 11 went on to get three A-levels compared with 60% of their wealthier counterparts.

Only 33% of the disadvantaged group took one or more A-levels in the so-called “facilitating subjects” favoured by universities, such as maths, English, the sciences, humanities and modern languages, compared with 58% of their better-advantaged peers.

Item B: A recent Longitudinal Study found: ‘three years after graduation, those from more advantaged socio-economic backgrounds and those who attended private schools are more likely to be in the ‘top jobs’….

‘This research shows that even if we compare students from the same institution type, taking the same subjects and with the same degree class, socioeconomic status and private schooling still affects an individual’s chance of securing a top job,’ the report concluded.

‘An individual who has a parent who is a manager and who attended a private school is around 7 percentage points more likely to enter the highest status occupations. Male graduates from a managerial background who attended a private school are around 10 percentage points more likely to enter the highest status occupations.

But academics do not know whether the advantage given to private school pupils is simply the ‘old boys’ network’ or whether they learn better social skills so appear more confident in job interviews.

‘Our results indicate a persistent advantage from having attended a private school. This raises questions about whether the advantage that private school graduates have is because they are better socially or academically prepared, have better networks or make different occupational choices.’

Item C: Why middle class kids get the best jobs interviews with graduates, employees and experts  and explores the reasons why wealthy and connected graduates get the best jobs and why poorer graduates lose out, suggesting our system is not meritocratic.

Item D: The growth of the creative industries in the UK

New figures published in 2015 reveal that the UK’s Creative Industries, which includes the film, television and music industries, are now worth £76.9 billion per year to the UK economy.

Key Statistics on the Creative Industries

• Growth of almost ten per cent in 2013, three times that of wider UK economy
• Accounted for 1.7 million jobs in 2013, 5.6 per cent of UK jobs
• 2015 set to be another bumper year for UK creative output Sajid Javid, Secretary of State for Culture, Media and Sport, said:The UK’s Creative Industries are recognised as world leaders around the globe and today’s figures show that they continue to grow from strength to strength. They are one of our most powerful tools in driving growth, outperforming all other sectors of industry and their contribution to the UK economy is evident to all. 

Sociology Revision Resources

If you like this sort of thing, then you might like my A level sociology revision mega bundle – which contains the following:

• over 200 pages of revision notes
• 60 mind maps in pdf and png formats
• 50 short answer exam practice questions and exemplar answers
• Covers the entire A-level sociology syllabus, AQA focus.

Signposting and Related Posts 

Assess the Marxist Perspective on the Role of Education in Society – An essay which should easily get you full marks if this question comes up in the A level Sociology exam (assuming you refer to the relevant item!)

This material is mainly relevant to the education topic within A-level Sociology

Share this:

• Share on Tumblr

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

Discover more from ReviseSociology

Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.

Continue reading

• Revision Resources
• Learning sociology starts here!!!
• Sociology revision books
• Answering Exam Questions

What’s the point of education? A Marxist perspective

Marxist perspective of education-revision notes.

In Marx’s view this ruling class ideology is far more effective in controlling the subject classes than physical force, as it is hidden from the consciousness of the subject class – this is known as ‘ false consciousness’ . One example Marxists might use is the role of meritocracy in education to control the working classes by getting the working classes used to being rewarded for being good and doing as you’re told.

Education and Ideology

Louis Althusser (a Marxist) (1971) argued that the main role of education in a capitalist society was the reproduction of an efficient and obedient work force. This is achieved through schools:

• transmitting the ideology that capitalism is just and reasonable (school teaches you to compete with your fellow pupils by trying to do better than them)
• train future workers to become submissive to authority (schools teachers you to accept as normal to do as you’re told, this way when your boss orders you what to do, it seems perfectly normal)

Althusser argues that ideology in capitalist society is fundamental to social control and education is instrumental in transmitting this ideology. He argues education is an ideological state apparatus which helps pass on ruling class ideology (for example ideology) in order to justify the capitalist system.

Bowles and Gintis’s (Marxists) research ‘Schooling in Capitalist America’ (1976) supported Althusser’s ideas that there is a close correspondence ( known as the correspondence principle ) between the social relationships in the classroom and those in the workplace. Through the hidden curriculum  (it is vital you follow the hidden curriculum link). Bowles and Ginitis argue schools introduce the ‘long shadow of work’ because schools create a hard-working disciplined workforce for capitalist societies. This process is essential for social reproduction – the reproduction of a new generation of workers schooled (disciplined) into accepting their role in society. This occurs through:

School and workplace – school mirrors the workplace through its hierarchical structures – teachers’ give orders and pupils obey. Pupils have little control over their work – a fact of life in the majority of jobs. Schools reward punctuality and obedience and are dismissive of independence, critical awareness and creativity – this mirrors the workplace expectations. The hidden curriculum is seen by Bowles and Gintis as instrumental in this process.

Social inequality – schools legitimate the myth of meritocracy that every person in life has an equal chance to reach the top. This myth justifies the belief that those people who have reached the ‘top’ deserve their rewards because they achieved them by their own had-work ( meritocracy ). In this way inequality becomes justified.

However Bowles and Gintis argue that rewards in education and occupation are based not on ability but on social background. The higher a person’s class or origin the more likely they are to attain top qualifications and a top job. For Bowles and Ginitis, schools are institutions which legitimize social inequality. See Bourdon (position theory); Bourdiau (cultural capital) ; and Bernstein ( language and class).

Assessing Marxist and functionalist perspectives of education.

To appreciate the subtle differences between Functionalist and Marxist perspectives on education please work through the following presentation then test your knowledge  Marxism test questions only   Click on this link for the 15 questions

Return to overview

Share this:

23 comments.

very insightful

i know its very early in the year, but ive recently starte AS Sociology and this is such a life saver when it comes to the 12 markers when it comes to revision, Thank you very much

My pleasure, direct your classmates to this site too and thanks for the feedback 🙂

This website has been so helpful in my education studies for university on the sociological perspectives of the purpose of education. Thank you so much. Is this a certified site that I could use as a reference for my essay? (England)

Yes you can use our address for your references. Thanks for the positive feedback 🙂

Althusser argues that ideology in capitalist society is fundamental to social control and education is instrumental in transmitting this ideology. He argues education is an ideological state apparatus which helps pass on ruling class ideology (for example ideology) in order to justify the capitalist system. Am I correct in thinking this basically mean the ruling class use education to justify a capitalist society and system, keeping everyone in their places, ie the bourgeoisie remain the bourgeoisie and the proletariat the proletariat? Thank you for this article, very helpful for my presentation 🙂

Yes you are correct in thinking ruling class use education to justify a capitalist society and system, keeping everyone in their places, the two-tier education system illustrates this. Hope that helps and thanks for the positive feedback too 🙂

Does this mean that marxists want to create an obediant work force? that functionalists want working class to progress?

No Marxists’ point is the school system is designed so it creates an obedient workforce – via hidden curriculum. While functionalists’ identify schooling as a process which helps establish a collective conscience – via hidden curriculum – such as establishing a consensus on the value of meritocracy which implies everyone can succeed if they put the effort in. Hope that helps 🙂

Very helpful page, thanks a lot for creating it 🙂

I don’t get the link between education & social roles and Marxists. I thought it was the feminist believing that education reinforces gender roles? Can you please explain that to me as I’m confused by the theories. Thanks in advance 🙂

Hi – thanks for the positive comment 🙂 Yes feminists do argue education reinforces gender roles, whereas Marxists’ argue education reinforces an individuals class position. In contrast functionalists’ argue education facilitates goal attainment via meritocracy. Hope that helps?

Thank you ,sorry for being off topic but i want to as is education an ideological state apparatus completely

powerful points thanks

I LOVE THIS WEB PAGE…..MUCH LOVE FROM ME TO YOU…NCOOH

Many thanks 🙂

Reblogged this on sexyparisienne.com .

thanks for reblog 🙂

Thank you a lot i hope this is going to help me in my exam tommorow

Hi- many thanks for this comment, I hope your exam went well 🙂

Thanks a lot for sharing this to clear many doubts about education. This website has been so helpful in my education studies for university on the sociological perspectives of the purpose of education.

Thanks for the feedback. Glad you find it so useful, be sure to let your friends know how helpful you find this website 🙂

• What is the point of education? « Sociology at Twynham School
• Open University |

Leave a comment Cancel reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed .

• Entries feed
• Comments feed
• WordPress.com

Follow Blog via Email

Enter your email address to follow this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Email Address:

Follow me on Twitter

• amazon.co.uk/Just-Like-Gi…
• sociologytwynham.files.wo…
• gov.uk/government/uploads…
• news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_po…
• sociologytwynham.wordpres…

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

• Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
• Subscribe Subscribed
• Copy shortlink
• Report this content
• View post in Reader
• Manage subscriptions
• Collapse this bar
• Privacy & Cookies: This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this website, you agree to their use. To find out more, including how to control cookies, see here: Our Cookie Policy

Marxist Theories of Teaching

• Reference work entry
• First Online: 01 January 2022
• pp 1035–1039
• Cite this reference work entry

• Derek R. Ford 2  

37 Accesses

Introduction

Marxism is much more than an intellectual exercise or a theoretical mode of investigating the world. Marxism is a guide to action, a way to change the world in the interests of the exploited, oppressed, and dispossessed. Yet it is no dogmatic guide. In fact, Marx’s own theories evolved over the course of his life, and they did in response to changes in the workers’ movement in which Marx and his frequent co-thinker, Frederick Engels, were deeply involved. While Marx never explicitly addressed teaching or pedagogy, his work left a rich and capacious reserve from which teacher educators have drawn. However, as Marxism is not a fixed dogma, it’s necessary to clarify that Marx ism is much broader than the writings of Marx. In this sense, Marxist theories of teaching are both contributions to teacher education and contributions to Marxist theory and practice.

One of the key pillars of Marx’s work is historical materialism, which asserts that world developments on any level are...

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

• Available as PDF
• Read on any device
• Instant download
• Own it forever
• Available as EPUB and PDF
• Durable hardcover edition
• Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
• Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1976). Schooling in capitalist america: Educational reform and the contradictions of economic life . New York: Basic Books.

Google Scholar  

Ford, D. R. (2016). Communist study: Education for the commons . Lanham: Lexington.

Grande, S. (2004). Red pedagogy: Native American social and political thought . Lanham: Rowman & Littlefield.

Lewis, T. E. (2018). Inoperative learning: A radical rewriting of educational potentialities . New York: Routledge.

Malott, C. S. (2016). History and education: Engaging the global class war . New York: Peter Lang.

Book   Google Scholar  

Download references

Author information

Authors and affiliations.

Education Studies, DePauw University, Greencastle, IN, USA

Derek R. Ford

You can also search for this author in PubMed   Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Derek R. Ford .

Editor information

Editors and affiliations.

Beijing Normal University, Beijing, China

Michael A. Peters

Section Editor information

No affiliation provided

Petar Jandrić

Patrick Carmichael

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2022 Springer Nature Singapore Pte Ltd.

About this entry

Cite this entry.

Ford, D.R. (2022). Marxist Theories of Teaching. In: Peters, M.A. (eds) Encyclopedia of Teacher Education. Springer, Singapore. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8679-5_116

Download citation

DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-16-8679-5_116

Published : 27 August 2022

Publisher Name : Springer, Singapore

Print ISBN : 978-981-16-8678-8

Online ISBN : 978-981-16-8679-5

eBook Packages : Education Reference Module Humanities and Social Sciences Reference Module Education

Share this entry

Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:

Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.

Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative

• Publish with us

Policies and ethics

• Find a journal
• Track your research

Live revision! Join us for our free exam revision livestreams Watch now →

Reference Library

Collections

• See what's new
• All Resources
• Student Resources
• Assessment Resources
• Teaching Resources
• CPD Courses
• Livestreams

Study notes, videos, interactive activities and more!

Sociology news, insights and enrichment

Currated collections of free resources

Browse resources by topic

• All Sociology Resources

Resource Selections

Currated lists of resources

Study Notes

Feminist Views on the Role of Education

Last updated 26 Nov 2019

• Share on Facebook
• Share on Twitter
• Share by Email

Feminist sociologists have large areas of agreement with functionalists and Marxists in so far as they see the education system as transmitting a particular set of norms and values into the pupils. However, instead of seeing these as either a neutral value consensus or the values of the ruling class and capitalism, feminists see the education system as transmitting patriarchal values.

For example, Heaton and Lawson (1996) argued that the hidden curriculum taught patriarchal values in schools. They noted traditional family structures in textbooks (along with many other gender stereotypes, subjects aimed towards specific genders, gender divisions in PE and sport and the gender division of labour in schools (predominantly female teachers and male managers).

Liberal feminists would point out these remaining issues of patriarchy in education while also acknowledging significant strides towards equality in the education system. In the 1940s and 50s, under the tripartite system, boys had a lower pass rate for the 11+ than girls (essentially institutionally failing girls in order to ensure more boys can succeed) and some subjects being specifically for one gender or the other used to be institutional rather than based on apparent preference. Today, once subjects become optional, there are quite clear gender preferences for one subject or another, but all subjects are open to all pupils. Perhaps the biggest change, since the 1980s, is that girls now outperform boys in education so if the system is a patriarchal one, designed to favour boys, it is singularly failing. However, Michelle Stanworth (1983), for instance, noted that there will still higher expectations of boys and teachers would be more likely to recommend boys apply for higher education than girls at the same academic level.

Radical feminists argue that the education system is still fundamentally patriarchal and continues to marginalise and oppress women. It does this through some of the processes already noted (reinforcing patriarchal ideology through the formal and hidden curriculum and normalising the marginalisation and oppression of women so that by the time girls leave school they see it as normal and natural rather than as patriarchal oppression). Radical feminist research has also looked at sexual harassment in education and how it is not treated as seriously as other forms of bullying (e.g. Kat Banyard, 2011).

Black and difference feminists point out how not all girls have the same experience in education and that minority-ethnic girls are often victims of specific stereotyping and assumptions. For example, teachers might assume that Muslim girls have different aspirations in relation to career and family from their peers. There have been studies of the specific school experiences of black girls, which we will consider in more detail in future sections.

Where feminists acknowledge that there has been a great deal of improvement for girls in education, they would point to feminism itself as being one of the main reasons for this. Sue Sharpe (1996) found that London schoolgirls in the 1970s had completely different priorities and aspirations from similar girls in 1996. She found that while in the 1970s girls’ priorities were marriage and family, in the 1990s this had switched dramatically to career. While there are a number of potential reasons for this, legislative changes such as the 1970 Equal Pay Act and the 1976 Sex Discrimination Act are likely to have played their part, hence supporting a liberal feminist perspective).

What all feminists agree on is that the education system does work as an agent of secondary socialisation which teaches girls and boys what are seen as universal norms and values and gender scripts that are actually those of contemporary patriarchy and that girls and boys learning these values prevents social change and challenges to patriarchy.

Evaluating feminist views on the role of education

Two features of contemporary education, at least in the UK, which critics of feminist views on education often point out are: 1) education is an increasingly female-dominated sector (most teachers are women, an increasing number of managers are women because they are drawn from the available teachers) and 2) the education system is increasingly resulting in female success and male underperformance. If this is a system designed to ensure men are in the top positions in society and women are marginalised into a domestic role, then it would appear to be failing. The education system is sending more and more girls into higher education (Michelle Stanworth’s research on this is now out of date).

However, while there is clearly some truth in these criticisms, it is still clear that there is a glass ceiling and a gender pay gap so the education system might be creating lots of highly-qualified girls, they are still losing out to their male peers when it comes to top jobs and higher incomes. They are also still more likely to take time off for child-rearing, work part time and to carry out the majority of housework tasks. Feminists point out that the education system largely normalises this (alongside other agents of socialisation such as the family and the media) and so even highly-qualified women often accept this as inevitable or normal. At the same time men are socialised to also consider this normal.

• Hidden curriculum
• Radical Feminism

You might also like

Families: feminism, just the facts.

16th May 2017

Example Answer for Question 1 Paper 1: AS Sociology, June 2017 (AQA)

Exam Support

Example Answer for Question 2 Paper 1: AS Sociology, June 2017 (AQA)

Example answer for question 3 paper 1: as sociology, june 2017 (aqa), example answer for question 4 paper 1: as sociology, june 2017 (aqa), example answer for question 5 paper 1: as sociology, june 2017 (aqa), example answer for question 6 paper 1: as sociology, june 2017 (aqa), our subjects.

• › Criminology
• › Economics
• › Geography
• › Health & Social Care
• › Psychology
• › Sociology
• › Teaching & learning resources
• › Student revision workshops
• › Online student courses
• › CPD for teachers
• › Livestreams
• › Teaching jobs

Boston House, 214 High Street, Boston Spa, West Yorkshire, LS23 6AD Tel: 01937 848885

• › Contact us
• › Terms of use
• › Privacy & cookies

© 2002-2024 Tutor2u Limited. Company Reg no: 04489574. VAT reg no 816865400.