Schools Reproducing Inequalities

Bourdieu’s idea that schools are reproducing inequalities is not appealing at first, especially for people like me from a working class background and who have progressed through to the middle class in a specific context and community. From my personal experience and from people that I know who have accomplished in life just because of their education, Bourdieu’s idea is pessimistic and one wants to just give up on it. However a little more in-depth study, conceptual understanding and a know-how of other concepts in Bourdieu’s theory gives the wider picture which also includes transformation and change in life through opportunities. One thing that caught my attention and is more convincing to me is the historical condition of that time in France when Bourdieu developed his framework. Below I will explain that condition and how Bourdieu’s idea was received by people from different walks of life.

Bourdieu brought to light the idea of schools reproducing inequalities at a time in France when schooling was believed to be a neutral and liberating tool for the working class. He further argued that this reproduction idea of schooling is so influential that little can be done to avoid or prevent it. Such a stance had implications for the public especially for reformers, teachers and students/parents. For reformers and proponents of transformation or social change, this idea was pessimistic and hence was criticized widely. It was against their belief that education is a means of social change. For teachers, the idea that little can be done to stop schools reproducing inequalities and bring a change had pedagogical implications. For teachers conceived it as if pedagogical actions is strictly limited in its ability to bring about change. In light of such stance, students from low social status or immigrant backgrounds presented themselves as the ‘victim of the system’ instead of trying to contest it. On the other hand, school choice became more important to the advantageous middle class parents.

At that time in France leftist political party like the communist and teacher union were active and had developed a comprehensive educational plan which was conceived as a remedy for educational and social inequality. Bourdieu’s interpretation of school being the means of reproducing inequalities, was not appealing to them because there were many communist leaders and/or union members who belong to working class family but who had succeeded because of education or schooling. Obviously such an interpretation of school’s role in creating inequality was perceived as undermining their beliefs and therefore as a threat. They tended to ignore this interpretation and continued supporting the idea of school that schooling is a liberating force. Nevertheless, later one these student unions and leftists used Bourdieu’s work to justify their own analysis of the educational system and played a role in debates and protests in France.

Nevertheless later on, Bourdieu was more open for transformation and social change based on some events that occurred. Firstly, and as discussed above the general public reaction to the idea; secondly a wide criticism from scholars on his pessimistic and deterministic approach; and finally, Bourdieu himself took active part in politics in the 1990s which influenced his thinking. Hence Bourdieu’s later writings incorporate change and transformation more than his early writings.