| |
Response and Reflection
Giroux, H..
(1983). Theories of Reproduction and Resistance in the New
Sociology of Education: A Critical Analysis, Harvard Educational
Review, 53, pp. 257-93.
This article was very difficult for me to read. Not because it
uses language that is outside of my simplistic and limited vocabulary,
but rather because it 1) is almost entirely abstract, and 2) carries a
communistic tone that I have a very difficult time reading without
randomly screaming. I cannot speak intelligently and accurately
about what schools were like prior to my own experience in the
schooling system. I can only read or listen to the
interpretations of those that were around during these periods. I
can say that I find most of what Giroux is saying to be speculative,
unsubstantial, and lacking connection of the abstract to the concrete.
I also find it extremely interesting that he references other
explanations as "liberal" theories or models. Under the
circumstances, this seems a little contradictory to me.
While I understand the main thrust of his thesis about the relevance
and explanatory power of theories of reproduction and resistance, I
found his descriptions to be lacking grounded substance. He
starts the discussion with theories of reproduction, and highlight this
notion of a "hidden curriculum" that permeates some rules to continue
the inherent domination of classes and races. The economic model
emphasizes this proposed relationship with schooling and the workforce.
He even suggests that the schools produce more graduates than
there are jobs in the economy. Is this statement supposed to mean
that any given economy should be expected to employ all graduates? I am
not suggesting we cannot find a place in society for everyone, but I
would ask why we have shortages in so many fields of endeavor. I
am comfortable saying it isn't because some dominant class is secretly
injecting a mal curriculum.
His second model, the cultural-reproductive model, makes a little more
sense. He suggests that the schools are purposeful
instruments purposefully reproduce culture. However, he suggests
that this is the reproduction of the negative class differences.
He must be a pessimist. I would like to believe that we as
a society embrace some degree of individualism. Look at the
number of individuals that went from poverty to high income (social
mobility) or the use of schools to battle social injustices such as the
case of Little Rock, Arkansas. I believe he is right that we
reproduce cultural values in our schools, but I do believe that we also
try to overcome the weaknesses in society or education. Schools
are political tools. They could be used to reproduce negative and
positive elements in society. To assume that it is all negative
is a pretty dim look on things.
His final theory of reproduction is hegemonic-state model. This
mode describes the relationships between schools and the state, and the
state and capitalism. His description of the relationship between
the three entities does bring some important points into the limelight.
For instance, he discusses how it is the state's responsibility
to meet the basic needs of capital in our society by providing the
necessary flow of workers, knowledge, and skills to the workforce... to
reproduce the labor market. He then brings up the point that the
state has to win the consent of the "dominated classes" and "working
classes". This does lead to potential conflict in an imperfect
system of both capitalism and democracy. He also brings to light
the state's control over students, and the need to keep children and
teenagers out of trouble by mandating their presence in school to
maintain a productive economy. So, maybe not all of what he is
saying is forlorn.
Finally, he concludes by moving into the theory of resistance and the
relationship among homes, schools, the state, and the workforce.
The differences in perspective, needs, and beliefs are sources of
conflict in our society. He discusses the role of human agency as a
mediating construct, and emphasizes the ideological differences that we
often experience. Of course, he also maps the conflicts to
gender, race and class differences. His main premise as it
relates to theories of resistance is that they have an importance place
in our society when examining education. I could most definitely
agree with that notion. The study of conflict is a very valuable
concept for educators and researchers to understand.
So, I am not sure if it is the fact that the article is dated or
whether there is a major idealogical difference between the author and
myself, but I still think this article is way off. As mentioned,
it does bring some important issues to the table, but I feel that most
principles of the theories of reproduction that he brings to light are
questionable. I suspect if I understood the full scope of things
in this article, it would make more sense.
|