SOCIAL FUNCTION OF EDUCATION: FROM COMTE TO SEN
Abstract
Accepting the
education’s role for development is obvious to most of the theories. But the
priority differs considerably. Education’s social function is a distinctly
discrete entity and perhaps not getting adequate discourse as other
advancements. In this paper, I have tried to explore the education’s social
concern as posed by some of the theories. It was a painstaking task to
visualize the concern as most of the theorists do not have ‘distinct claims’ on
the area. Despite the challenges, I could fairly crystalize that all theorist
take education play a crucial role for the development of the society. For most
of the theories, education is taken as one of the vehicle for change whereas
Sen argue education stands ‘instrumental’ for creating ‘social opportunities’
thereby supplementing an informed choice for individual as well as society for
‘freedom’ - which he takes synonymous to the development.
Keywords: Education, Development, Social Function, Positivist, Marxist Theory, Weber, the Social Choice Theory, Nepal.
Introduction
Now it has been clear that education is
a part of becoming ‘individual’ and individuals becoming a ‘social member’. At
this stance it doesn’t stand worthy to have a debate whether education is a
‘private good’ or ‘social good’. Many researchers has already marked there are
social as well as private returns from education. Rather it is important to discuss what is the
role of education in the society? in other words, what social function should
education do? is a subject for academic discourse. The present structure of
formal education has a very young history, moreover the State intervention for
expanding education to (all) masses are a more recent practice. The
structuration of education-schooling has some link with how sociologist and
educationist take ‘what functions education should make for the society as a
whole’. This paper concentrates to see how sociologists; Auguste Comte (
Postivist, 1798-1857 ); Karl Marx (Marxism,1818-1883); Max Weber (Modern Sociological
Thought,1864-1921); Amratya Sen (Social
Choice Theory, 1933, 79 years) see the social role of Education. I would even
like to lens the same theoretical and philosophical praxis to local (Nepalese)
contexts. This critical review hopefully will be able to set an academic
discourse for understanding the role of social agent ‘education’ in building
and transforming society. The article discusses about the different theoretical
perspective on education under different heads.
Education and Comte
Auguste
Comte (1798–1857) is the founder of positivism, a philosophical and political
movement which enjoyed a very wide diffusion in the second half of the
nineteenth century (Bourdeau, 2007, 2011). This philosophical doctrine had subsequent success and
influence as it expresses the climate of the times.
It
rejects the entire enterprise of metaphysics and theology as unverifiable,
substituting science and the scientific method in their place. Positivism leads
to the formation of the social 'sciences,' that is, the belief that the methods
of science and mathematics will unlock the mysteries of human behavior and lead
to the improvement of that behavior. The departmentalized organization of the
modern university is based on the positivist ideal.
(MS, 2009)
Comte chose the word positivism
on the ground that it indicated the “reality” and “constructive tendency” that
he claimed for the theoretical aspect of the doctrine (Bourdeau, 2011). One can
note his interest in a reorganization of social life for the good of humanity
through scientific knowledge, and thus control of natural forces. It is clearly
evident that two primary components of positivism, the ‘philosophy’ and the ‘polity’
(a program of individual and social conduct, as defined by Encarta
Dictionaries, 2009), were merged by Comte in the religion where humanity was
the object of worship as to Bourdeau, 2011).
Though not pinpointed, Comte had a
great concern to the social function of education. He had repeatedly used the
world humanity and linked the concern of education in developing humanity. For
Comte as Mugloini (1999) states, “education, whose
role was decisive for the future of humanity, was naturally addressed to the
individual”. The arguments marked by different scholars clearly mark that the
education effectiveness to Comte varies considerably to different but all agree
that Comte finds it (education) essential component for the society. Mugloini
takes several direct translated statements of Comte’s work to understand the
educational consideration in Comte’s Positivism.
When Comte deprecates ‘the deplorable obsession with psychology’,
he therefore draws attention to the fact that our knowledge is not
psychological, but historical. He means in particular that, as the purpose of
education is to enable human beings to attain humanity, it is not a question of
coming down to the child’s level, but of raising the child to the dignity of a
person. Subjectivity should not be abandoned to its anarchical drives; the
first concern must be to ‘model the inside on the outside’.
There is no doubt that societies are the best schools for
historical knowledge. Comte differs in the concern a school is for childhood.
Besides enabling the child to become an adult in mind and feelings, it meditates
humanity and its development on the childhood. The education should be more
contributing to the society over individuals but through individuals. This in
one hand accepts the present educational structuration and at the other argues
for the openness of the institutions in the society. A crucial point to
understand here is, he is not against the institution rather is not agreeing
with the formative nature and claim of educational institutions preparing ‘individuals’.
The education is more for society. Mugloini (1999) on evaluating Comte’s
position on education marks, “A person had first to learn to adjust to the
invariable order of things, and this was so as to better to adjust later to
human order.”
Ritzer (2011)
Comte
placed greater emphasis on the study of social dynamics, or social change. His
theory of social dynamics is founded on the law of the three stages; i.e., the
evolution of society is based on the evolution of mind through the theological,
metaphysical, and positivist stages. He saw social dynamics as a process of
progressive evolution in which people become cumulatively more intelligent and
in which altruism eventually triumphs over egoism.
It is very clear that Comte has used the
word Positivism in two senses, but coming to Education and Comte’s positivism,
he has been generously kind to emphasizing education for change in ‘individual’
and contribute to the society. The education has to take over the role of
making progressive changes and handling the humanitarian crisis.
Ritzer (2011) attempted to
sort out the bright half of Comte’s contribution to the society, where they
mark the following positive contribution.
·
Comte coined the term
"sociology" and may be viewed as its founder.
·
Comte thought of
sociology as a positivistic science.
·
He elaborated four
methods of sociology.
·
He distinguished
social statics from social dynamics.
·
He was a
macrosociologist.
·
He viewed social
structures as taming individual egoism.
·
He offered a
dialectical view of structural change.
·
He attempted to
integrate theory and practice.
Mugloini (1999) says on
education for Comte, “Education undoubtedly needs firmly established
institutions, but it also needs that conviction which ‘the rebellious habits of
modern thought’ continue,
even nowadays, to repress or destroy”. Comte’s viewpoint establishes link of Education
with spirituality and power and at the same time recommends Education to be
general, aesthetic and practical (Mugloini, 1999). Looking at the areas of contribution that
Comte has made and going through the philosophy and educational concern, it is
clearly out Comte’s positivism define the education has a great role for
society; his education concerns, ‘as individual gets educated - the social
order gets stable and progressive’. This marks; education for Comte contributes
significantly to the society than individual and separates him from his
contemporary materialististic Marxian Philosophy.
Education and Marx
One of the common academic practices
seen in most of the countries in basic/public education is; ‘States in one hand
insists the public education for traditional curricula and on the other hand
advocates for autonomy of study in those schools’. I compare this status even to Nepal and this
is where we find confusions! I suppose we academicians need to debate deeper to
know the interest of the players. The social function of education is a long
established fact. Even Karl Marx in his speech to ‘General Education’ had posed
his concern for education for society during his address at the General Council meeting of August 10, 1869 on
the Basle Congress program:
Marx said there was a peculiar difficulty connected with this
question. On the one hand a change of social circumstances was required to
establish a proper system of education, on the other hand a proper system of
education was required to bring about a change of social circumstances; we must
therefore commence where we were.( The Bee-Hive, August 14, 1869 as cited from marxist.org)
Despite
Marx along with Engels had a concern on education systems, the theory
associated with them did not speak very widely
about education. “They developed
theoretical perspectives on modern societies that have been used to highlight
the social functions of education and their concepts and methods have served to
both theorize and criticize education in the reproduction of capitalist
societies, and to support projects of alternative education” (Kellner, 2004 ). Ivkovic
(1999) also notes that the ‘classics of Marxism’ did not create any separate
theory of education. But their thoughts are scattered in number of their works.
Marxism marks the concern for developing dialectical-materialistic exercise, in
a special philosophical teaching along with theory of society. These concerns
come significantly on the issues of education and schooling. The educational
society must account the Marxist position for education. Looking to the
personality, many literature reports both (Marx and Engels) left bourgeois
families to pursue a life of revolutionary scholarship and struggle. Marx view,
The materialist doctrine that men are products of circumstances
and upbringing, and that, therefore, changed men are products of other
circumstances and changed upbringing, forgets that it is men who change
cirumstances and that it is essential to educate the educator himself.
(Marx, n.d. as cited in Kellner, 2004)
Marx here truly advocates the alternatives to the
existing educational process. In the
Manifesto, “expanded public education for the working class was one of the
major demands, and henceforth both Marx and Engels saw themselves as providing
education and theoretical guidance to the working class and socialist movement”
(Kellner, 2004). Despite there had been no elaborations on institutional
structuration/models but the theory manifests the existing educational
institutions are within bourgeois society.
This demand for an alternative of education aligned to the Marxian
theory, which as to Marx, education would help fully develop socialized
individuals, create a cooperative and harmonious society, and unleash
creativity in all of its forms. Kellner (2004) mark these ideas as ‘utopian
vision’ of Communism.
Ivkovic (1999) on
interpreting the Marxian theory to a practical level and at the same time
sorting the education function lensing the theory finds some genuine
educational and social concerns scattered in Marxian education and function for
the society.
·
In the
sociological research and study of the phenomena in education, the general laws
and principles of the dialectical and historical materialism should be applied.
·
Marx and
later Marxists have attributed an enormous, almost infinite power to education.
·
Education
is socio-economically conditioned and it has a class character in the class
society. But in modern education question concerning its role in reproducing the
class society should be raised.
·
Education
is an important medium of the reproduction of a particular (existing)
socio-economic system as well as of its ideological system. Despite these two
spheres (Education and Production) are radically different, Education needs to
continue the production of work force (production) and the intellectuals needed
for the continuous production process.
·
Separation
has caused the production to become a practical activity whereas education (as a
spiritual production) has become a theoretical activity. The contemporary
Marxist see the later as a powerful tool to bring acceptance to the desired
ideology. (Compiled from Ivkovic, 1999)
One common concern shared elsewhere
of Marx is "life is not determined by consciousness, but consciousness by
life" to mean here, life is a
materialistic component for Marxian philosophy. This makes a link of
materialistic concern to every aspects including education, so education is
also a matter, which is governed, used and stands a means for more socialized
individual and society. The consideration of education heavily as a material of
society is a peculiar to Marxian philosophy. And at the same time (to Marxian)
though not very significant as to economy but can still stand as an important
means to contribute a change to the society.
Education and Weber
Contrary to the Marxian theory which considers economic power as
the main power for the society, Weber argues for multiple powers. Max Weber
(1864-1920), a conflict theorist evaluates that formal education is an
important mechanism of confirming the status of different power forms and
legitimizing the powers. “Education is an important mechanism of status
aggrandizement, economic organization and political legitimation in complex
societies as different as industrial Germany and imperial china (Steven, 2007).
Understanding Weber’s
position I evaluate there are two clearly marked aspects for education.
Weber was especially astute in his theorization of the importance
of formal education in the development of Western modernity. He explained that as societies modernize,
inequalities of family, caste, and tribe gradually give way to hierarchies
predicated on individual achievement. In
modern times individuals accumulate status as they move through the elaborate
bureaucracies that characterize industrial societies: large corporations,
centralized governments, big religious organizations, and schools. (Steven, 2007)
These forms of organization tend to distribute rewards on the
basis demonstrated individual accomplishment, not inherited privilege (Weber
1946, as cited in Steven 2007). In this
vision schools are crucial organizations in modern societies as they function
to separate the ‘individual’ as a person from his position of his inheritance –
the society which is even a formal position and a position of privilege.
Scattered elsewhere but not precisely illuminated in his work, he evaluates
that education serve importantantly as ‘political’ and ‘social system’ that
makes a significant difference to individual as well as society. But at the
same time the he explains the inequality gets viciously trapped within these different
powers not entirely confined to education; By no means was Weber in a position
to underestimate about the capacity of economic or political power to privilege
itself through education, or “for schools themselves to be instruments of
economic and political influence” (Steven, 2007).
As to Steven (2007), on analyzing
early studies concludes that, “formal schooling does indeed have independent
effects on individual life chances; at the same time, parents tend to use
formal education as a primary means of handing privilege down to their
children”. This marks “Marx’s domination and Weber’s legitimation go hand in
hand” (Collins, 1971) where education role ‘for both’ can be to prepare
individuals and society of higher privilege, which will lead to better social
harmony.
The second and less explored position
of Weber regarding the views of ‘Knowledge Science’-education has been briefly
discussed in this paragraph. Weber not precisely but through his different
sharing, including “Science (social) as a vocation” has expressed the concern
over academic research viewpoints. Which has been analyzed by different
scholars, and many of them evaluate him to be a pragmatic scholar! Weber comes
strongly with the concept that ‘facts’ and ‘values’ are two different entities
though both come in an exercise to build the knowledge. Lykin (2009) marks,
Thinkers as diverse as David Hume, Max Weber, and Patrick Baert
have alleged that the difference between facts and values is so fundamental
that to appeal to one in support of another is considered a logical fallacy.
This view gives us a doubled epistemology, with one set of criteria for
warranting belief about facts and another set of criteria for warranting belief
about values.
When one tries to understand
the two entities with the contemporary conscience it is even clearer that these
two entities are different. The facts are always objective whereas values as
concern with ‘individuality’ are always subjective. And if (social) science is
objective, it must then go with facts alone. This sprouts a challenge;
‘knowledge without value?’, ‘Won’t it get lost in progression?’ This could be a
never ending discourse for present, but more important here is to see Weber’s
position on it.
Max Weber strongly resists the move to place (social) science at
the center of moral inquiry (values). Echoing Nietzsche and foreshadowing
developments in existentialism, Weber argues that scientific investigation
cannot relieve us of the necessity to choose. For Weber, moral decisions are
not reducible to empirical hypotheses. On his view, values are ever present in
scientific inquiry, from the selection of research questions to the
interpretation of results. (Lykin 2009)
But at the same time social science makes interpretation of facts which
is colored by the values we hold and cannot be isolated during the empirical
inquiry. The conflicts in between the facts and value have rumored many
scholars. Lain (2003) evaluates Weber;
…“Science” is a notoriously misleading translation of the German
Wissenschaft, which refers more broadly to the knowledge embodied in the
humanities as well as the natural and social sciences. …For Weber, conflicting
value judgments ultimately come down to a collision of incommensurable
“worldviews,” a “struggle” between competing “godheads” (as he memorably puts
it), and the university lectern is no place for “prophets dispensing sacred
values.”
Weber comes with a
conclusion to the confusion in a pragmatic way, “academics should confine
themselves to the “stern seriousness” of sober “analyses and statements of
fact” and so “set to work and meet ‘the demands of the day’” (Lain, 2003). This
shows Weber’s alignment, ‘Weber is a pragmatic scientist’.
Education and Sen
A book (study) report ‘Development as Freedom’
by Sen (1999) claims that it has explored the empirical connections and the
link between freedom and development. Sen (1999) claims,
Freedom is the central to the process
of development for two distinct reasons; 1). The evaluative reason; assessment
of progress has to be done primarily in terms of whether the freedoms that
people have are enhanced; 2). The effectiveness reason; achievement of
development is thoroughly dependent on the free agency of people.
In this connection Nobel laureate has
significantly highlighted the significance of
fundamental human freedoms and human rights for development theory and
practice. He had challenged the early domains of development which had
emphasized development merely in terms of poverty, and simple market
economy/utility. Rather he adds emphasis
on individual entitlements, capabilities, freedoms and rights and argues that the
conventional development indicators are usually secured with these entities.
When it comes to capabilities, education has a worth role, which is truly
admired by Sen. Sen (1999) in his own statements argue;
What people positively
achieve is influenced by economic opportunities, political liberties, social
powers, and enabling conditions of good health, basic education, and the
encouragement and cultivation of initiatives. The institutional arrangements
for these opportunities are also influenced by the exercise of people’s freedoms,
through the liberty to participate in social choice and in making of public
decisions that impel the progress of these opportunities.
Basic education for Sen is a pre-requisite to grab the
opportunities and inculcate development /progressive move. Education to Sen has
no confusions, he clearly marks, “… family income levels may be adjusted
downward by illiteracy and upward by high levels of education”.
For Sen, the key is to
let people make decisions about their own lives so they can choose the kind of
life they value. Referring to his own writing, in an interview (Sen, 2004 with
Laura Wallace, published in Finance and Development) he emphasizes development
by expanding the real freedoms that people enjoy. Sen, the Social Choice
theorist evaluates education as a key to let people use freedom. Sen has asked
for more public discussion on different issues; such as education, health, …
that require a participatory process. He evaluates the need of public
participation for education. One repetition that one can note in his arguments
is, ‘individual (even means society; community, state, country) literacy’ is ‘clarity
of thought’[1] and is very important to make
the world a better place. For Sen, It is particularly important to emphasize
the role of ‘choice’ in deciding what relative importance we would like to attach
to our competing multiple identities. “I don’t see participation holding
anything hostage,”(Sen , 2004). Now following Sen, it is obvious that people
should know their reason for attaching them to what they like. This becomes
possible through education, so education must be contributing to make an
informed choice for positive change. In his own writings sen (1999) says, “Development
requires the removal of major sources of unfreedom; poverty… neglects public
facility as well as intolerance or over activity of repressive states”.
Sen (1999) Chapter on
“The ends and the means of development” clearly marks the role of education for
the society. Where he explains about the ‘Primary ends (Constitutive role)’ and
the ‘Principal means (Instrumental role)’ of freedom in development. He further
classifies the ‘Instrumental Freedom’ into five categories: political freedoms;
economic facilities; social opportunities; transparency guarantees; and
protective securities. “These instrumental freedoms tend to contribute to the
general capability of a person to live more freely, but they also serve to
complement one another” (Sen, 1999). He legibly marks education is social
opportunity and explains it; “Social opportunities refer to the arrangements
that society makes for education, health care and so on, which influence the
individual’s substantive freedom to live better” (ibid.). These facilities help
for better personal life as well as increase participation in economic and
political activities. He keeps an example: “For example, illiteracy can be a
major barrier to participation in economic activities that require production
according to specification or demand strict quality control (as globalized
trade increasingly does) (Sen, 1999). While making evidences about the
complimentary role of instrumental freedom, he makes an example of Japan’s
economic development, which according to Sen’s view is complimented by social
opportunities, especially the basic education. Summarizing the Sen’s position
on education, he evaluates education is an important component to expand social
opportunities for development - individual as well as of society (inseparable);
this is why it demands a public participation to make it more instrumental.
Education in Nepal
Despite claim are there, “The close
relationship between education and development has long been emphasized in
Nepal” (Parajuli, & Wagley, 2010) there still lack good volumes of academic
discourse in the area. “Even though the relationship between education and
development was well established in development practices [in Nepal],
systematic efforts for understanding the nature of relationship began much
later” (ibid.). This has marked a need of scholars deploying themselves to
study the practical interlinks/ practices between the development and education
to the Nepalese context. While some scholars see dialectic discourses working
with development studies in academia, I argue they aren’t to the level and more
important to it is these have never been able to make practical implications.
The state have structured almost all part of education system. The controversy
‘state unleashing the authority to school education is a virtual claim’ as the
State still control the entire curriculum ‘to the extent of syllabus/contents’;
in addition there is a usual (ongoing) control on the governance and finance.
State has also declared free basic education but the arrangement and provisions
are far from the reality. This indicates, the State has understood the social
accountability of education but has not capacited the human resource as well as
the bureaucracy (legitimate power) to perform in the order. Whereas some
scholars even mark the political antagonism (Vollman, 2010) as one of the major
reason that education (especially technical and vocational training education)
could not be progressive in many countries of South Asia including Nepal. Referring
this small chunk, I conclude that the education has hardly been able to
establish a link in between development components in practices in Nepal. This
is why; Parajuli & Wagley (2010) marks, “Integrating education and
development; linking research and policy; building international as well as
continuing efforts with building localized epistemologies” should remain the
prioritized concerns for Nepal.
Conclusion
Education role has stood crucial for
the development of the society. Theorists align to a common standpoint that all
form of education can stand contributing to development. Comte despite his
positivist position in philosophy, some constructive flavor exists in his
concern in respect to education. Educating an individual child is more for a society
over individual. Comte as a macrosociologist finds individual as a component of
society, who plays a major role handling humanitarian crisis by education.
Comte talks about education as ideal tool and important driver for social
development where Marx always stick to materialistic concerns, this is where
two differ in their position of education for society. Despite Marx along with Engels do not speak
very specifically on education, but many of their insights on social concern
embody the educational concerns. As to their concern for expanding public
education, it is clear that the Marx was convinced with the strength of
education, but the only concern was to restructure then existing educational
setting, which was conditioned for unequal society (production). This legibly
indicates Marx value education as key material for social change. Marx had also
agreed that education can stand strong to bring people to ideological
alignment, but on other hand he even had a view that ‘life determines
consciousnesses - materlisitic philosophy’ which counter his own argument of
education. This is where I evaluate Marx is controversy about his position on
role of education. Despite to it, to practical evaluation of education he
evaluate that it can contribute for change towards an ideal society. Contrary
to the materials/economic power, Weber argues multiple powers prevail in the
social dynamics. To Weber education is the key for legitimizing these
powers. Weber estimates that education
can stand as equal as to economic or political power in the society. Education
(formal education) makes an independent effect on individual but at the same
time this inherits to their children and this goes to positive change with the
time. So here, what can be inferred is, Education compliments the domination
(as to Marx) and legitimation as to Weber. Weber in his later work talks about
the different phase of education; he evaluates a pragmatic link in between the
facts and values. On his concern the personal (individual as well as social)
values are important on the entire process of being educated and developed. Sen
come with entirely different understanding for the development. Stating to the
role of education for society, he clearly marks the role of education as one
most important ‘instrument’ with an ability to equip individual with ‘social
opportunities’. He had clearly marked education as one of the instrumental
entities for development (freedom) and cannot be replaced by others.
References
Bourdeau, M. (2011). Auguste Comte. The stanford encyclopedia of philosophy.
Zalta E. N. (ed.). CSLI, US: The Stanford University.
Ritzer, G. (2011). Classical sociological
theory. (6th ed.). New York
: Mac-Graw Hill Company.
Muglioni, J. (1999). Auguste Comte (1796-1857). The quarterly
review of comparative education (XXVI) 1, March 1996, pp. 209-22.Paris:
UNESCO-International Bureau of Education.
The Bee-Hive, (August 14, 1869). Karl Marx address in the
Basle congress, August 10, 1869.
Kellner,
D. (2005). Marxian perspectives on educational
philosophy: from classical marxism to critical pedagogy. CA: UCLA Press.
Ivkovic, M. (1999).
Marxist theoretical and methodological approach and orientation in the
sociology of education. Philosophy and sociology (2)6/2 pp. 225 –
233.UDC:303:37.015.4:37.015.2.
Collins, R. (1971).
Functional and Conflict Theories of Educational Stratification. American sociological review (36).
Pp.1002-1019
Steven, M. L. (2007). Culture and education. New York: NYU Press.
Lain, T.
(2003). Heidegger and the politics of the university.
Journal of the history of philosophy, (41)4. pp. 515-542. DOI:
10.1353/hph.2003.0069
Lykins C. (2009). Social
science and the moral Life. The Journal of speculative philosophy, (23), 2. pp. 137-150. DOI: 10.1353/jsp.0.0076
Sen, A. (September,
2004). Persnal interview by Laura Wallace.
Finance and development. Washington DC: International Monetary Fund.
Sen, A. (1999). Development as freedom. New York: Alfred
A. Knopf Inc.
Parajuli, M. N.
& Wagley M. P. (2010). Comparative education and development: reflection
from Nepal. Compare 40(6). DOI: 10.1080/03057925.2010.523262
Vollman, W. (2010).
The challenge of technical and vocational training and education in rural
areas: the case of South-Asia. Journal of education and research. 2.
Kathmandu: Kathmandu University School of Education.
[1]
The term used by Laura Wallace on his article debriefing the personal interview
with Amartya Sen (2004).
No comments:
Post a Comment