The tension between capitalism and education in a democratic society, by N.J. Barkauskas

Scholars of education often fail to take account of the deterministic power that capitalism has on modern life.  Capitalism runs much deeper than merely being a guiding principle for economic practice.  As an economic system capitalism determines what counts as success in most modern societies.  Scholars and advocates of education often seem to forget about the powerful economic motivators that function under capitalism which drive societies when they propose more and better education as a solution to social problems[1].  The purpose of this essay is to describe one major tension that supports the system of education in the United States.  In this essay I’ll argue that considering education as a solution for social problems should be done with caution because the values behind education are often incompatible with those of capitalism.  Furthermore, such incompatibilities inevitably become more salient for citizens of a democratic society like the United States.

American society, I think, could safely be said to value individualism and collectivism at the same time.  The nation feels at times both proud of its nationalism but encourages the free expression of those feelings.  Americans value hard work and expect to be rewarded for it but also require an equal competition to feel as if those rewards are deserved.  The citizens of the United States also believe in helping and aiding our fellow man through humanitarian efforts and social programs but are often criticized for not being world citizens and remaining willfully isolated from other countries.  We simultaneously want to be the best at everything, and will work to get there, but we will not sacrifice values and we will not tolerate injustice.

Capitalism is at the center of many American values in that it sustains and institutionalizes them.  However, like fish in water[2] most citizens might not recognize capitalism though they live with it every day.  The history of capitalism with regards to public schooling has been previously explored (Bowles & Gintis, 1975).  Marx’s description of how Capital functions in a society, while operating primarily as a critique and in support of communism, is one of the best depictions of the social and ethical parameters under which capitalism operates (Marx, 1994).  Capitalism’s impact on the social and economic world is indisputable.  For these reasons I will not launch a polemic in favor or against it, suffice to say that it has benefits and drawbacks which are too lengthy for this space.

Nel Noddings argues that competition between schools rarely produces better academic results or educational innovation and concludes that competition should be abandoned as an outdated “20^th century ideal” (Noddings, 2013, p. 1).  Empirically speaking there is evidence to support this argument but also the argument to the contrary (see Diamond, 2007 and Hart & Figlio, 2011).  However, no data of any kind is required to see that Noddings’ notion of eliminating competition between and within schools flies directly in the face of social values like hard work and the American dream, both of which are  integral parts of American capitalism.  Denying schools and students the capacity to compete runs contrary to the American drive to work as hard as possible and improve one’s self as a means of social mobility.  Removing competition denies students and parents the chance to claim dominance and mastery, which is social mobility’s primary fuel.  Whether real or imagined, success in school means that the individual student (and by extension their family) will be successful economically and can anticipate moving upward socially.  This, I think, is part of the very fabric of American society and many scholars like Noddings seem to ignore competition’s role in modern life when making prescriptions for change.

Noddings’ second main proposal is that society should alter its valuations of work.  Noddings argues in favor of vocational education and encourages her audience to believe that manual labor is just as important as the scientific work of medical doctors and world altering “academic” work performed by educational researchers.  This is a fine thing to claim, and it’s true in my opinion, but that doesn’t mean that most people will adopt this position on logical validity and truth alone, or that it’s something easily changed in the broader society.

Placing a high value on vocational education and work also runs contrary to many American ideals.  Social status is highly important to Americans because they attach notions of self-worth to their economic net worth.  People want “a good job” and digging ditches is not considered a good job because choosing manual labor as an occupation is seen as absurd and having it as your only option is a “failure”.  On this topic Marx’s logic is illuminating: factory owners don’t toil all day making widgets but instead produce more capital by using capital (they own the means of production), meanwhile members of the proletariat own nothing but their own labor and have to sell it on the open market (they work for a living) (Marx, 1994).  Those who work manually are not successful enough to own the labor of others.  Therefore, the true barometer of success in the capitalist social world is the type of work you do, and in order to do that desirable (e.g. non-manual) work you need the proper education.  By this logic, to willfully pursue vocational education is for many Americans akin to admitting economic defeat.

What is often overlooked is that under a capitalist economic system it is necessary that the majority of people will fail so that there can be any success at all; a consequence from which the educational system does not escape.

Lastly, education advocates often call for systemic change that allows “all students to succeed”.  Such calls often fail to recognize that in a capitalist social system such change is literally impossible.  What is often overlooked is that under a capitalist economic system it is necessary that the majority of people will fail so that there can be any success at all;  a consequence from which the educational system does not escape. Failure of many is a necessary condition for the success of any.  Necessary failure is in direct contrast with the American values housed under democracy (valuing everyone’s voice, enabling the success of all) and contrasts sharply with some stated goals of educational systems (to create an informed populace).  In social systems with limited resources, and especially where money is limited, there will be competition for those resources and financial capital.  A capitalist’s purpose then is to get as much capital as possible through competition; having capital is a direct measure of success and those who don’t have it are not successful capitalists.  Competition for resources, and success by defeating or surpassing others, is the name of the game and the game is played just as fervently in the education systems of capitalist countries as it is in their banking sectors[3].

It’s therefore not possible for all students to be successful when they’re competing for things like class rank, time with the teacher, or attention from their parents.  Furthermore, not all schools can be good schools when they are forced to compete for resources, space, or students.  These limits are inherent to any capitalist system.  So instead of blaming teachers and educators for ‘failures’ we might do well to consider that educational struggles don’t always come from a lack of motivation, ambition, or ability from teacher OR students.  Likewise, success is not always due to student ability, school resources, or even plain hard work.  There just might be legitimate instances where success, as determined by traditional measures, is next to impossible.  Here we have the last and biggest tension between education and capitalism in a democratic society.

Does this mean that educational programs for disadvantaged populations are wasteful? Does it mean that everything is hopeless?  I don’t think so.   These programs[4] are valuable precisely because they are the only counter-measure in place for the social inertia of capitalism and the only reason systematically disadvantaged populations are in the game at all.  I’m also not arguing here that valuing hard work or competition is wrong or that calling for the removal of certain ideals from the American educational ethos might be a good idea.  The argument here is instead that educational theorists and advocates often want to have their cake, eat it too, and also criticize the baker.  Understanding the whole complexity of a vast and unwieldy educational system is likely impossible but in order to argue for any change scholars and policy makers must remember the ideological foundations on which their problems AND their solutions rest.

I don’t claim to have all the answers and it’s likely that these issues are negative resolution problems[5] until capitalism is abolished.  If a system change is the only solution then I’m on board for that.  Ending competition on a fundamental level would be an important first step; this is possible by funding schools above and beyond what they require for basic operation.  Changing how the society views work would be great; let’s start by detaching social status from employment status and occupation.  To make it possible for all children to succeed just take down capitalism.  I don’t make these suggestions lightly and yet the point here is that systemic social and political changes might be the only way to ease the tension between capitalism and education.  Regardless, a conversation about the compatibility of certain social values is worth having, especially when it comes to education.

[1] Some examples of such arguments can be found in Education and Democracy by Nel Noddings (2013)

[2] See David Foster Wallace’s famous speech “This is water”, the full audio is here: http://youtu.be/PhhC_N6Bm_s

[3] For a recent example of this see (Hawking & Nehill, 2014).

[4] Examples of such programs would be Upward Bound as well as general social policies like Affirmative Action and holistic college admissions policies.

[5] A good example of this type of problem is “The Seven Bridges of Konigsburg”, a description of which lives here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Bridges_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg

References

Bowles, S., & Gintis, H. (1975). Capitalism and Education in the United States. In Socialist Revolution (Vol. 5).

Gould, S. J. (1996). The mismeasure of man. New York: Norton.

Hawking, B., & Nehill, T. (2014, March 27). At MPS, data on teachers raise resource-equity questions. At MPS, data on teachers raise resource-equity questions. News: Minn Post. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from

Kaestle, C. F., & Foner, E. (1983). Pillars of the republic: common schools and American society, 1780-1860. New York: Hill and Wang.

Marx, K. (1994). Capital, Volume One. In L. H. Simon (Ed.), Karl Marx: Selected Writings (pp. 214–297). Indianapolis: Hackett Pub. Co.

Noddings, N. (2013). Education and democracy in the 21st century. New York.

This is Water – David Foster Wallace, Full Speech. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://youtu.be/PhhC_N6Bm_s

Wikipedia: The SevenBridges of Konigsberg. (n.d.). The Seven Bridges of Konigsberg. Retrieved March 28, 2014, from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seven_Bridges_of_K%C3%B6nigsberg