Thread: Education in different ideologies

This is a paper I wrote this spring for my political ideologies course. It discusses how education would be formulated in different societies (socialist, liberal, conservative etc).

Teach Your Children Well

Different ideologies present different social structures, with different forms of government. One need, however, is common among all forms. That is the need to educate the next generation of Socialists, Capitalists, Communists, Fascists or whatever other ideology. Each society must have a way to transfer its ideas, values, and information onto their progeny. For a society to maintain itself, it must maintain its ideals from one generation to the next. If it does not, the society will inevitably suffer and fail.
This does not, however, mean that all forms of education are the same. The public school system that one finds in the United States differs greatly from the religious schools one might find in any Middle Easter countries. Their purpose, however, is the same: to mold the youth of the society into a form similar to the adult of the society.
There are three areas of education. The first is the study of math, sciences and languages. They are necessary for the communication and technological advancement of any society. The second area is the study of the economic and social structure. Depending on the society, this are would take different forms, but would invariably be present, as it is precisely what is needed to maintain a given social structure. The third area is that of religion. The degree to which this is included would vary greatly from structure to structure. In some systems it would take absolute priority and be a mandatory area for all persons, in others it would take a back seat and perhaps be left to the individual's parents to facilitate. In still other systems, the concept of religion would be eliminated entirely, either by neglect, or by systematic expurgation from the curriculum.

A liberal society, despite valuing freedom for the individual, must also instill these values of freedom in its population. Whether this is awakening a blossoming mind to the freedoms and liberties that a person naturally deserves or indoctrination is an entirely subjective debate. Liberals might, and do, argue that educating someone in the ways of freedom is simply helping someone develop, whereas a devils advocate could counter that bringing someone up in a certain manner is merely a disguised method of an authority asserting power, making liberalism, at least in respects to education, hypocritical. In his second Treatise of Civil Government, Locke, one of the founders of modern liberalism, has this to say about children.

“55. Children, I confess, are not born in this full state of equality, though they are born to it. Their parents have a sort of rule and jurisdiction over them when they come into the world, and for some time after, but it is but a temporary one. The bonds of this subjection are like the swaddling clothes they are wrapt up in and supported by in the weakness of their infancy. Age and reason as they grow up loosen them, till at length they drop quite off, and leave a man at his own free disposal.” (Locke)

Here Locke is postulating that while all men are equal, when a person is a child, they do not yet have the natural reasoning power and fully developed human nature to make decisions for themselves. Thus it is the responsibility of an authority (for Locke, a parent) to make decisions regarding the child. This governance would extend into the realm of securing for the child an adequate education. In a truly liberal society, with a free market governed by real competition and benevolent human nature, a good education would be essential for a person’s success. When a child reached the age at which he could make rational decisions regarding his own life, he could decide to what level he might wish to take his education, in accordance with what skills and value he has to offer the market. It is apparent that Locke believes that the ultimate decision making about a child’s rearing, including the curriculum rests in the parent’s hands. It is the parent’s responsibility to see that the child is sufficiently educated in practical skills, such as language, and applied sciences. It is presumed that the parent is a believer in the Liberal socio-economic model, so naturally he would transfer to the child similar beliefs. According to Locke, it is not indoctrination, merely exercising the paternal jurisdiction, while the child is in the infant state of weakness. As far as religion is concerned, religious education would be entirely at the discretion of the parent.
Merely because the parent is the ultimate decision maker regarding a child’s education does not mean that he is necessarily the educator. A parent would have the right to decide the manner in which the child was educated. The child could be home schooled, or placed in an educational institution. The child’s religious education could come at home, at school, or be non-existent. This model closely reflects that which is prevalent in the United States. Parents can teach their kids at home, or they can “outsource” it to private or public schools. Thus they can tailor their children’s exposure to various facets of reality, desirable or undesirable. The glaring difference between the hypothetical and the real is, of course, the role of government. Liberals belief of government “That which governs least, governs best.” It seems unlikely that a freedom asserting society would have any tolerance for a government attempting to impose such strict standards for education.
There is an apparent paradox in this hypothetical liberal model. Liberals believe in equality of opportunity. If the parent has jurisdiction over the child’s education, it is presumed that the parent will use his resources to facilitate that education. This throws a wrench in the works of equal opportunity. Those born into a wealthy family can more easily get a superior education. There are multiple solutions to this problem. First, since theoretically, everyone has a positive human nature, people could rally around to help create the next entrepreneurial generation. As absurd as this may sound by our standards, it is maybe more realistic than it would seem. If a society recognizes that competition is necessary for a flourishing and advancing civilization, different members might choose to assist in creating as many competing new members of society as possible.
Another possible solution would be an extension of the social contract. Parents give up a certain amount of their educational autonomy in exchange for a state mandated education system. Properly “liberalized” parents could allow the public schools to teach subjective areas such as math and science that have little room for bias. The economic and social culture can be learned through simply living in a society. Religion, of course, can be taught at home or at a place of worship regardless of the economic status of the parents.

Conservatism stems from a reaction to the perceived debauchery of liberalism run amok in revolutionary France. One of the fathers of conservatism, Thomas Hobbes, gave the basis for what came to be known as the "Social Contract". The idea behind it is that the populace gives up a certain amount of liberty to the state, or government, in order for security. Classical liberals use Hobbes’ argument as the basis for their claim that some government is necessary to ensure maximum freedom. However, liberals and conservatives ideas differ greatly in regards to the extent which a government should be present and active in the citizen’s lives and decision making. A main tenet for Hobbes is the idea that the government exists to protect the people from themselves. People are not considered to be governed by reason, but by something more primal. As a result, a strong government is necessary to maintain order. Hobbes feels that a monarch is a good vehicle for this government. Following on this thought, it is apparent that people would be incapable of setting their own educational agenda, let alone the curriculum for others, and their children. Hobbes has much to say about how people should be educated.

“Again, every sovereign ought to cause justice to be taught, which, consisting in taking from no man what is his, is as much to say, to cause men to be taught not to deprive their neighbors, by violence or fraud, of any thing which by the sovereign authority is theirs. Of things held in propriety, those that are dearest to a man are his own life, and limbs; and in the next degree, in most men, those that concern conjugal affection; and after them, riches and means of living. Therefore the people are to be taught, to abstain from violence to one another’s person, by private revenges; from violation of conjugal honour; and from forcible rapine, and fraudulent surreption of one another’s goods. For which purpose also it is necessary they be showed the evil consequences of false judgment, by corruption either of judges or witnesses, whereby the distinction of propriety is taken away, and justice becomes of no effect: all which things are intimated in the sixty, seventh, eighth, and ninth commandments” (Hobbes, 301)

Here Hobbes is touching on two areas of education. The first is the structure of society. He believes that men are not naturally good (as opposed to Locke’s theory) and that they must be taught their goodness in order for there to be a stable, peaceful, and just society. The second area he addresses is that of religion. By referencing a religious text, specifically the Ten Commandments in the Judeo-Christian Bible, Hobbes is clearly showing a propensity towards an institutionalized religion that is foisted upon the people, for their own good, whether they will it or not. State and religion based education is in keeping with the conservative ideals of maintaining a stable society. If there is an across the board standard for what people are taught, there is less of a likelihood for contention among the citizenry.
Hobbes also gives an idea about how this education might be accomplished.

“And the divines, and others as make show of learning, derive their knowledge from the universities and from the schools of law, or from books, which by men, eminent in those schools and universities, have been published. It is therefore manifest, that the instruction of the people, dependeth wholly, on the right teaching of youth in the universities.” (Hobbes, 301)
Hobbes then caveats this statement by saying that the universities and institutions of his time may not be suitable for appropriate instruction. He concedes that, before a university can be the proper mode of instruction, the universities themselves must be “taught” to promote the correct values, such as respecting the sovereign power of the King. (302). One can assume that these institutions would also be used to instruct persons in the useful sciences and trades, as might be suitable for that person’s ability and status.

In communism, the ultimate goal is the complete dissolution of government, and the withering away of the state. However, the father of Communism, Karl Marx, believed that an immediate jump to the elimination of the government would be impossible. He advocated a workers revolution and a temporary “dictatorship of the proletariat.” In the meantime, however, he also had ideas about how children should be educated. People realizing their social status is a vital part of Marx’s theory. Thus, education should be able to assist the “Vanguard of the Proletariat” in preparing workers minds for their revolt.

“Elementary education by the state” is altogether objectionable. Defining by a general law the expenditures on the elementary schools, the qualifications of the teaching staff, the branches of instruction etc., and, as is done in the United States, supervising the fulfillment of these legal specifications by state inspectors is a very different thing from appointing the state as the educator of the people! Government and Church should rather be equally excluded from any influence on the school.” (Marx 396)

Marx is presenting an atmosphere that would be conducive to the teachers and professors having a large amount of sway of their pupils. According to Marx, it will be these, the intellectuals, thinkers, teachers, and philosophers, who will help the proletariat achieve a social conscious. The semi-government run school system is an efficient way to ensure knowledge in general areas for children. Marx’s direct words on the Church show that he feels strongly that religion has no place in public education. After the revolution, the situation would be different. During a dictatorship of the proletariat, the ruling working class would have to take education in hand to ensure that all up-and-coming communists are on the same page ideologically. When the state eventually withers away, a new form of education must arise.
The end result of communism, as well as left wing anarchism, would be a classless, stateless society. Obviously, with this situation, a state run education system would be not only undesirable, but impossible. Anarchists believe in allowing an individual to develop according to his natural predispositions. For Anarchists, a major problem is the institutionalized education process. “De-schooling” proponent Ivan Illich poses the idea that having such a structured system is detrimental to actual edification.

“Many students, especially those who are poor, intuitively know what the schools do for them. They school them to confuse process and substance. Once these become blurred, a new logic is assumed: the more treatment there is, the better are the results; or, escalation leads to success. The pupil is thereby “schooled” to confuse teaching with learning, grade advancement with education, a diploma with competence, and fluency with the ability to say something new. His imagination is “schooled” to accept service in place of value.” (Illich, 1)

A model for education in an anarchist society would focus on an individuals interests rather than a set standard curriculum. Thus each child could have a curriculum centered on their main interests. This would allow people to excel in fields that they are pre-disposed to, rather than slog through mediocrity in mandated curricula. As a person progressed in their education, there would be a balance of benefit for the community. By allowing students to set their own course, this model encourages children not to automatically conform to a norm. Conforming limits the creativity and motivation that is necessary for a society to advance.

Education is vital for the continued existence of any society. Without it, a civilization will inevitably regress. The manner of the education differs from society to society; however, there will always be an education system of some sort that attempts to reflect the economic and social structure.










Works Cited:
1. Two Treatises of Civil Government, John Locke
2. Leviathan, Thomas Hobbes
3. The Marx-Engels Reader, Karl Marx, Friedreich Engels
4. Deschooling Society, Ivan Illich

Other Sources
1. Why Societies Need Dissent, Cass R. Sunstein

Originally Posted by Donkey_Left

This is a paper I wrote this spring for my political ideologies course. It discusses how education would be formulated in different societies (socialist, liberal, conservative etc).

Are you inviting comments or critiques? If so, you ought to say so explicitly.

Originally Posted by Mad_Michael

Are you inviting comments or critiques? If so, you ought to say so explicitly.

I didn't...?

Woops. No I didn't say so. My bad.

YES! Comments and critiques are most welcome.

It's too long for me to read. Would that go under comment or critique?

I actually found your second-last paragraph to be very interesting. Of course, such an anarchic model would never be introduced as I'm not sure how feasible it would be on a state-scale, but certainly I'm sure that there would be some private schools around that would have adopted such a program of sorts. You're quite right in saying that we should encourage creativity. Not every student is good at maths. Not every student is good at biology. This doesn't mean that these students are any less bright; it just means that the abilities or interests that they are good at haven't yet been tapped - and the limitations of the current broad curriculum are unable to do that. It would be very interesting to see if any studies (and I'm sure they have been) have been done on such a concept, and the medium term results for the students in terms of what they have done since they left school? I would assume that the cessation of disenfranchisement for children with their schools be encouraging their education along individual lines, would lead to reductions in truancy, petty-leading-to-major crime, increasing social attachments in terms of instilling a desire to achieve in society, etc. Well done!

Originally Posted by reino

It's too long for me to read. Would that go under comment or critique?

Critique of me, comment on you.