Education and the Reproduction of the Social Division of Labor
The ideological defense of modern capitalist society rests heavily on the assertion that the equalizing effects of education can counter the disequalizing forces inherent in the free-market system. That educational systems in capitalist societies have been highly unequal is generally admitted and widely condemned. Yet educational inequalities are taken as passing phenomena, holdovers from an earlier, less enlightened era, which are rapidly being eliminated.
The record of educational history in the United States, and scrutiny
of the present state of our colleges and schools, lend little support to
this comforting optimism. Rather, the available data suggest an alternative
interpretation. In what follows I argue (1) that schools have evolved in
the United States not as part of a pursuit of equality, but rather to meet
the needs of capitalist employers for a disciplined and skilled labor force,
and to provide a mechanism for social control in the interests of political
stability; (2) that as the economic importance of skilled and well-educated
labor has grown, inequalities in the school system have become increasingly
important in reproducing the class structure from one generation to the
next; (3) that the U.S. school system is pervaded by class inequities,
which have shown little sign of diminishing over the last half century;
and (4) that the evidently unequal control over school boards and other
decision-making bodies in education does not provide a sufficient explanation
of the persistence and pervasiveness of inequalities in the school system.
Although the unequal distribution of political power serves to maintain
inequalities in education, the origins of these inequalities are to be
found outside the political sphere, in the class structure itself and in
the class subcultures typical of capitalist societies. Thus, unequal education
has its roots in the very class structure which it serves to legitimize
and reproduce. Inequalities in education are part of the web of capitalist
society, and are likely to persist as long as capitalism survives.
THE EVOLUTION OF CAPITALISM
In colonial America, and in most pre-capitalist societies of the past, the basic productive unit was the family. For the vast majority of male adults, work was self-directed, and was performed without direct supervision. Though constrained by poverty, ill health, the low level of technological development, and occasional interferences by the political authorities, a man had considerable leeway in choosing his working hours, what to produce, and how to produce it. While great inequalities in wealth, political power, and other aspects of status normally existed, differences in the degree of autonomy in work were relatively minor, particularly when compared with what was to come.
Transmitting the necessary productive skills to the children as they grew up proved to be a simple task, not because the work was devoid of skill, but because the quite substantial skills required were virtually unchanging from generation to generation, and because the transition to the world of work did not require that the child adapt to a wholly new set of social relationships. The child learned the concrete skills and adapted to the social relations of production through learning by doing within the family. Preparation for life in the larger community was facilitated by the child's experience with the extended family, which shaded off without distinct boundaries, through uncles and fourth cousins, into the community. Children learned early how to deal with complex relationships among adults other than their parents, and children other than their brothers and sisters.1
Children were not required to learn a complex set of political principles or ideologies, as political participation was limited and political authority unchallenged, at least in normal times. The only major socializing institution outside the family was the church, which sought to inculcate the accepted spiritual values and attitudes. In addition, a small number of children learned craft skills outside the family, as apprentices. The role of schools tended to be narrowly vocational, restricted to preparation of children for a career in the church or the still inconsequential state bureaucracy.2 The curriculum of the few universities reflected the aristocratic penchant for conspicuous intellectual consumption.3
The extension of capitalist production, and particularly the factory system, undermined the role of the family as the major unit of both socialization and production. Small peasant farmers were driven off the land or competed out of business. Cottage industry was destroyed. Ownership of the means of production became heavily concentrated in the hands of landlords and capitalists. Workers relinquished control over their labor in return for wages or salaries. Increasingly, production was carried on in large organizations in which a small management group directed the work activities of the entire labor force. The social relations of production-the authority structure, the prescribed types of behavior and response characteristic of the work place-became increasingly distinct from those of the family.
The divorce of the worker from control over production-from control over his own labor-is particularly important in understanding the role of schooling in capitalist societies. The resulting social division of labor-between controllers and controlled-is a crucial aspect of the class structure of capitalist societies, and will be seen to be an important barrier to the achievement of social-class equality in schooling.
Rapid economic change in the capitalist period led to frequent shifts of the occupational distribution of the labor force, and constant changes in the skill requirements for jobs. The productive skills of the father were no longer adequate for the needs of the son during his lifetime. Skill training within the family became increasingly inappropriate.
And the family itself was changing. Increased geographic mobility of labor and the necessity for children to work outside the family spelled the demise of the extended family and greatly weakened even the nuclear family.4 Meanwhile, the authority of the church was questioned by the spread of secular rationalist thinking and the rise of powerful competing groups.
While undermining the main institutions of socialization, the development of the capitalist system created at the same time an environment-both social and intellectual-which would ultimately challenge the political order. Workers were thrown together in oppressive factories, and the isolation which had helped to maintain quiescence in earlier, widely dispersed peasant populations was broken down.5 With an increasing number of families uprooted from the land, the workers' search for a living resulted in large-scale labor migrations. Transient, even foreign, elements came to constitute a major segment of the population, and began to pose seemingly insurmountable problems of assimilation, integration, and control.6 Inequalities of wealth became more apparent, and were less easily justified and less readily accepted. The simple legitimizing ideologies of the earlier period-the divine right of kings and the divine origin of social rank, for example-fell under the capitalist attack on the royalty and the traditional landed interests. The general broadening of the electorate first sought by the capitalist class in the struggle against the entrenched interests of the pre-capitalist period-threatened soon to become an instrument for the growing power of the working class. Having risen to political power, the capitalist class sought a mechanism to ensure social control and political stability.7
An institutional crisis was at hand. The outcome, in virtually all capitalist countries, was the rise of mass education. In the United States, the many advantages of schooling as a socialization process were quickly perceived. The early proponents of the rapid expansion of schooling argued that education could perform many of the socialization functions that earlier had been centered in the family and to a lesser extent, in the church.8 An ideal preparation for factory work was found in the social relations of the school, specifically, in its emphasis on discipline, punctuality, acceptance of authority outside the family, and individual accountability for one's work.9 The social relations of the school would replicate the social relations of the work place, and thus help young people adapt to the social division of labor. Schools would further lead people to accept the authority of the state and its agents-the teachers-at a young age, in part by fostering the illusion of the benevolence of the government in its relations with citizens.10 Moreover, because schooling would ostensibly be open to all, one's position in the social division of labor could be portrayed as the result not of birth, but of one's own efforts and talents.11 And if the children's everyday experiences with the structure of schooling were insufficient to inculcate the correct views and attitudes, the curriculum itself would be made to embody the bourgeois ideology.12 Where pre-capitalist social institutions, particularly the church, remained strong or threatened the capitalist hegemony, schools sometimes served as a modernizing counter-institution.13
The movement for public elementary and secondary education in the United States originated in the nineteenth century in states dominated by the burgeoning industrial capitalist class, most notably in Massachusetts. It spread rapidly to all parts of the country except the South.14In Massachusetts the extension of elementary education was in large measure a response to industrialization, and to the need for social control of the Irish and other non-Yankee workers recruited to work in the mills.15 The fact that some working people's movements had demanded free instruction should not obscure the basically coercive nature of the extension of schooling. In many parts of the country, schools were literally imposed upon the workers.16
The evolution of the economy in the nineteenth century gave rise to new socialization needs and continued to spur the growth of education. Agriculture continued to lose ground to manufacturing; simple manufacturing gave way to production involving complex interrelated processes; an increasing fraction of the labor force was employed in producing services rather than goods. Employers in the most rapidly growing sectors of the economy began to require more than obedience and punctuality in their workers; a change in motivational outlook was required. The new structure of production provided little built-in motivation. There were fewer jobs such as farming and piece-rate work in manufacturing in which material reward was tied directly to effort. As work roles became more complicated and interrelated, the evaluation of the individual worker's performance became increasingly difficult. Employers began to look for workers who had internalized the production-related values of the firm's managers.
The continued expansion of education was pressed by many who saw schooling as a means of producing these new forms of motivation and discipline. Others, frightened by the growing labor militancy after the Civil War, found new urgency in the social-control arguments popular among the proponents of education in the antebellum period.
A system of class stratification developed within this rapidly expanding educational system. Children of the social elite normally attended private schools. Because working-class children tended to leave school early, the class composition of the public high schools was distinctly more elite than the public primary school.17 And as a university education ceased to be merely training for teaching or the divinity and became important in gaining access to the pinnacles of the business world, upper-class families used their money and influence to get their children into the best universities, often at the expense of the children of less elite families.
Around the turn of the present century, large numbers of working-class and particularly immigrant children began attending high schools. At the same time, a system of class stratification developed within secondary education.18 The older democratic ideology of the common school-that the same curriculum should be offered to all children-gave way to the "progressive insistence that education should be tailored to the "needs of the child."19 In the interests of providing an education relevant to the later life of the students, vocational schools and tracks were developed for the children of working families. The academic curriculum was preserved for those who would later have the opportunity to make use of book learning, either in college or in white-collar employment. This and other educational reforms of the progressive education movement reflected an implicit assumption of the immutability of the class structure.
The frankness with which students were channeled into curriculum tracks, on the basis of their social-class background, raised serious doubts concerning the "openness" of the social-class structure. The relation between social class and a child's chances of promotion or tracking assignments was disguised-though not mitigated much-by another "progressive" reform: "objective" educational testing. Particularly after World War I, the capitulation of the schools to business values and concepts of efficiency led to the increased use of intelligence and scholastic achievement testing as an ostensibly unbiased means of measuring the product of schooling and classifying students.20 The complementary growth of the guidance counseling profession allowed much of the channeling to proceed from the students' own well-counseled choices, thus adding an apparent element of voluntarism to the system.
The legacy of the progressive education movement, like the earlier reforms of the mid-nineteenth century, was a strengthened system of class stratification within schooling which continues to play an important role in the reproduction and legitimation of the social division of labor.
The class stratification of education during this period had proceeded hand in hand with the stratification of the labor force. As large bureaucratic corporations and public agencies employed an increasing fraction of all workers, a complicated segmentation of the labor force evolved, reflecting the hierarchical structure of the social relations of production. A large middle group of employees developed, comprising clerical, sales, bookkeeping, and low-level supervisory workers.21 People holding these occupations ordinarily had a modicum of control over their own work; in some cases they directed the work of others, while themselves under the direction of higher management. The social division of labor had become a finely articulated system of work relations dominated at the top by a small group with control over work processes and a high degree of personal autonomy in their work activities, and proceeding by finely differentiated stages down the chain of bureaucratic command to workers who labored more as extensions of the machinery than as autonomous human beings.
One's status, income, and personal autonomy came to depend in great measure on one's place in the work hierarchy. And in turn, positions in the social division of labor came to be associated with educational credentials reflecting the number of years of schooling and the quality of education received. The increasing importance of schooling as a mechanism for allocating children to positions in the class structure played a major part in legitimizing the structure itself.22 But at the same time, it undermined the simple processes which in the past had preserved the position and privilege of the upper-class families from generation to generation. In short, it undermined the processes serving to reproduce the social division of labor.
In pre-capitalist societies, direct inheritance of occupational position
is common. Even in the early capitalist economy, prior to the segmentation
of the labor force on the basis of differential skills and education, the
class structure was reproduced generation after generation simply through
the inheritance of physical capital by the offspring of the capitalist
class. Now that the social division of labor is differentiated by types
of competence and educational credentials as well as by ownership of capital,
the problem of inheritance is not nearly so simple. The crucial complication
arises because education and skills are embedded in human beings; unlike
physical capital, these assets cannot be passed on to one's children at
death. In an advanced capitalist society in which education and skills
play an important role in the hierarchy of production, then, the absence
of confiscatory inheritance laws is not enough to reproduce the social
division of labor from generation to generation. Skills and educational
credentials must somehow be passed on within the family. It is a fundamental
theme of this essay that schools play an important part in reproducing
and legitimizing this modern form of class structure.
Many of the ideas in this essay have been worked out jointly with Herbert
Gintis and other members of the Harvard seminar of the Union for Radical
Political Economics. I am grateful to them and~to Janice Weiss and Christopher
Jencks for their help.
1. This account draws upon two important historical studies: P Aries, Centuries of Childhood (New York: Vantage, 1965) and B. Bailyn, Education in the Forming of American Society (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1 960). Also illuminating are anthropological studies of education in contemporary pre-capitalist societies. See, for example, 1. Kenyatta, Facing Mount Kenya (New York: Vintage Books, 19623 pp. 95-124. See also Edmund S. Morgan, The Puritan Family Religion and Domestic Relations in Seventeenth Century New England (New York: Harper and Row 1966).
2. Aries. Centuries of Childhood. In a number of places, e.g., Scotland and Massachusetts, schools stressed literacy so as to make the Bible more widely accessible. See C. Cipolla, Literacy and Economic Development (Baltimore: Penguin Books, 1969) and Morgan, Puritan Family, chap. 4. Morgan quotes a Massachusetts law of 1647 which provided for the establishment of reading schools because it was "one chief project of that old deluder, Satan, to keep men from knowledge of the Scriptures."
I have never considered mere knowledge . . . as the only advantage derived from a good Common School education. . . . workers with more education possess a higher and better state of morals, are more orderly and respectful in their deportment, and more ready to comply with the wholesome and necessary regulations of an establishment. . . . In times of agitation, on account of some change in regulations or wages, I have always looked to the moSt intelligent, best educated and the most moral for support. The ignorant and uneducated I have generally found the most turbulent and troublesome, acting under the impulse of excited passion and jealousy.Quoted in Michael B. Katz, The Irony of Early School Reform (Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1968), p.88. See also David Isaac Bruck, "The Schools of Lowell, 18244861: A Case Study in the Origins of Modern Public Education in America" (Senior thesis, Harvard College, Department of Social Studies, April 1971)
10. In 1846 the annual report of the Lowell, Mass., School Committee concluded that universal education was "the surest safety against internal commotions" (1846 School Committee Annual Report, pp. 17-18). It seems more than coincidental that, in England, public support for elementary education-a concept which had been widely discussed and urged for at least half a century-was legislated almost immediately after the enfranchisement of the working class by the electoral reform of 1867. See Simon, Studies in the History of Education, 1 780-1870. Mass public education in Rhode Island came quickly on the heels of an armed insurrection and a broadening of the franchise. See F. T. Carlton, Economic Influences upon Educational Progress in the United States, 1820-1850 (New York: Teachers College Press, 1966).
A middle class attempt to secure advantage for their children as technological change heightened the importance of formal education assured the success and acceptance of universal elaborate graded school systems. The same result emerged from the fear of a growing, underschooled proletariat. Education substituted for deference as a source of social cement and social order in a society stratified by class rather than by rank (M. B. Katz, "From Voluntaries to Bureaucracy in U.S. Education," mimeograph, 1970).12. An American economist, writing just prior to the "common school revival," had this to say:
Education universally extended throughout the community will tend to disabuse the working class of people in respect of a notion that has crept into the minds of our mechanics and is gradually prevailing, that manual labor is at present very inadequately rewarded, owing to combinations of the rich against the poor, that mere mental labor is comparatively worthless, the property or wealth ought not to be accumulated or transmitted, that to take interest on money let or profit on capital employed is unjust. . . . The mistaken and ignorant people who entertain these fallacies as truths will learn, when they have the opportunity of learning, that the institution of political society originated in the protection of property (Thomas Cooper, Elemenrs of Political Economy (1828], quoted in Canton, Economic Influences upon Educational Progress in the United States, 1820-1850, pp. 33-34).Political economy was made a required subject in Massachusetts high schools in 1857, along with moral science and civic polity. Cooper's advice was widely but not universally followed elsewhere. Friedrich Engels, commenting on the tardy growth of mass education in early nineteenth-century England, remarked:
"So shortsighted, so stupidly narrow-minded is the English bourgeoisie in its egotism, that it does not even take the trouble to impress upon the workers the morality of the day, which the bourgeoisie has patched together in its own interest for its own protection." (Engels, The Condition of the Working Class in England [Stanford, Calif,: Stanford University Press, 1968].)
13. See Thernstrom, Poverty and Progress. Marx said this about mid~nineteenth-century France: The modern and the traditional consciousness of the French peasant contended for mastery . . . in the form of an incessant struggle between the schoolmasters and the priests. (Marx, The 18th Brumaire of Louis Bonaparte, p. 125).
14. Janice Weiss and I are currently studying the rapid expansion of southern elementary and secondary schooling which followed the demise of slavery and the establishment of capitalist economic institutions in the South.
18. Sol Cohen describes this process in "The Industrial Education Movement, 1906-1917," American Quarterly, 20 no.1 (Spring 1968]; 95-110. Typical of the arguments then given for vocational education is the following, by the superintendent of schools in Cleveland:
It is obvious that the educational needs of children in a district where the streets are well paved and clean, where the homes are spacious and surrounded by lawns and trees, where the language of the child's playfellows is pure, and where life in general is permeated with the spirit and ideals of America, it is obvious that the educational needs of such a child are radically different from those of the child who lives in a foreign and tenement section. (William H. Elson and Frank P Bachman. "Different Course for Elementary School," Educational Review 39 [April 1910] 361-63).See also L. Cremin, The Transformation of the School Progressivism in American Education, 1876-1957 (New York, Alfred A. Knopf, 1961), chap. 2, and David Cohen and Marvin Lazerson, "Education and the Industrial Order," mimeograph, 1970.
Until very recently (the schools) have offered equal opportunity for all to receive one kind of education, but what will make them democratic is to provide opportunity for all to receive such education as will fit them equally well for their particular life work. (Boston, Documents of the School Committee, 1908, no.7. p.53, quoted in Cohen and Lazerson "Education and the Industrial Order")20. R. Callahan, Education and the Cult of Efficiency (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1962), Cohen and Lazerson, "Education and the Industrial Order," and Cremin, Transformation of the School.
Gibson's Home Page