Thursday, February 5, 2009
Durkheim in the US education system
After addressing the differences between mechanical and organic solidarity, I examine the possible existence of each within the American education system. Specifically, these Durkheimian concepts are applied to the interaction between wealthy class and working class schools districts.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
According to Durkheim, social solidarity is the glue that binds the people of a society together. Solidarity is Durkheim's quintessential standard of a moral good by the vague logic that needs for harmony and order are considered moral by common sense(Durkheim, p.24). Durkheim then divides social solidarity into two types based on the relations between the members of society: Mechanical and Organic. Mechanical solidarity arises from similarities among the individuals in society. Everyone performs the same function and understands the common morals of that society which is the, what Durkheim calls, collective consciousness. Durkheim treats collective consciousness as a blanket of common knowledge rules that everyone obeys. The state in societies operating under mechanical solidarity, uses repressive law to protect the collective consciousness from being broken. The state does this by defining a crime as that which offends the collective consciousness. To protect the collective consciousness the state issues passionate, public, and organized punishment against criminals. In this way, the population witnesses the act of disobeying the collective consciousness being punished. Punishment reaffirms society's awareness and respect for the collective consciousness.
ReplyDeleteOrganic solidarity is borne from interdependent differences among individuals in society. While MS destroys the individual, OS depends on individual differences. The division of labor produces specialization so that no one person may provide for themselves alone. Individuals are connected by the common need for each other. Collective consciousness is replaced by individual consciousness that is independent of the whole society (p. 85). Thus the state's role is not to repress misdeeds against a collective consciousness, but to regulate the relations between individuals and restore them to their normal state (p. 68). This regulation is done through restitutive law as opposed to repressive law. Because they are based off of opposite relationships, similar and different, mechanical and organic solidarity have an inverse relationship with one another (p. 84). The more organic solidarity there is in a society, the less mechanical solidarity one will find.
The education system in the US is largely divided into the wealthy and the not wealthy. Meanwhile, the common educational goal is "equal opportunity". Taking a Durkheimian view, the collective consciousness in the US is that all citizens should be given the equal chance to obtain education and advance upwards in society. The indicator of mechanical solidarity, however, is absent since laws concerning education are not repressive, and do not usually evoke a passionate, public and organized punishment. In fact, many local governments argue that the federal government should not interfere with educational policies at any level because the federal government cannot know and meet the needs of local regions (Kozol, p.210) ). If local city schools are taken as separate organs that each function differently than the other school districts, Durkheim could look at the education system as a specialized system of regions, each with its own individual consciousness. Wealthy areas want to deny any sign of interdependence within the schooling system and instead want to segregate wealthy class students from lower-income students by refusing to redistribute tax funds to less wealthy schools, segregating themselves residentially, and fleeing to private schools.
Some schools in lower-income areas become more vocational because educators see the lower-income students as entering entry-level minimum wage jobs (Kozol, p.76). Students are trained in typing, and vocational skills as a result. This appears as if low-income schools are becoming an organ meant to produce students with one skill set, while wealthier schools produce students aimed for other, higher-paying skills. In this case, there is an interdependence based on specialization between the educational organs. The state acts to maintain these relations by not funding lower-income schools and keeping those students marginalized and limited to entry-level jobs. While this maintains regularity (Durkheim, p.82), Durkheim mentions that the act of choosing one’s profession binds the individual to the interdependence of an organic society (Durkheim , p. 174). While the US education system is interdependent, its form of organic solidarity does not conform to all of Durkheim’s conditions. As the proportion of mechanical and organic solidarity shifts with the division of labor, perhaps our schools and government will change their policies to become more robustly organic.
I like how you integrated outside sources to help strengthen your arguement. Like you, I also see that the resources provided for education are split between those who are wealthy and unwealthy, with a different objective and future for both kinds. I think that the government will be more organic as well in terms of differences in the DL and the specialization of the students based on the appropriation. You connected MS and OS to the Education system really well, especially the consciousness of the school district among the wealthy and unwealthy.
ReplyDeleteThe wealthy-poor divide in education quality and opportunity is lamentable. Durkheim would agree, and he would emphasize the justness of contracts in his analysis. He would say that these inequalities are institutionalized; this is an abnormal form of the division of labor that must be fixed. "[T]here can be no rich and poor by birth without their being unjust contracts" (p. 319). Further, he would argue that the problem is not that there is a skill-focused vocational track and a university-focused academic track; the problem is the social value attributed to each one. We need both of them to maintain organic solidarity. To cure the inequality between the two, we must enact the proper regulations. Indeed, "liberty itself is the product of regulation" (p. 320).
ReplyDeleteThis is a very well written essay. I am so glad that you have mentioned the different resources that the wealthy and the unwealthy schools have. I have been working at an elementary school for a very long time. It is a low-income school, and I see how even parents have to help fundraise. This is due to the low budgets and lack of effective classes that the school provides. And From my experiences of attending a low income high school, many students were placed in classes as if it is “meant to produce students with one skill set, while wealthier schools produce students aimed for other, higher-paying skills” I think that that’s very true, because higher income schools provide many opportunities, as well as challenging and different classes to expand the horizon of their students. Overall, this is a very significant institution to write about. In addition to your great argument, you’ve accomplished a very strong differentiation between organic and mechanical solidarity.
ReplyDeleteBest,
Wafa
This is overall, a very well written essay. I really liked how you used Durkheim's definitions of solidarity to explain the differences between wealthy and low-income schools. I definitely agree, particularly with the low-income schools with which I have the most experience with. There is little to no confidence in these students. They are "trained" to have just the minimum skills to perform the lower-wage jobs. Although I think I could challenge that a bit too because there are magnet students in some high schools that are helped a lot more than the regular students. But for the most part, I agree with your overall argument. Great job! :-D
ReplyDelete