Introduction

This chapter introduces several theories concerning the sociology of education. Because this text explores
education from a sociological perspective, it is essential that we consider how theory contributes to our
understanding of education as a part of society. Sociological theories help us to take various pieces of a puzzle
and put them together, using a specific framework to help us make sense of it all and to give us the tools we
need to talk about the “bigger picture.” Each theoretical perspective represents a particular way of
understanding the social world. It is like seeing the world through a specific set of glasses (see Figure 2.1). The
way we see the world clearly influences how we interpret the social processes that are occurring within it. In
this chapter, theories are presented chronologically as they have developed over time.

Many theories are given consideration in this chapter. No one theory is “right”—you will see that every theory
has its own strengths and weaknesses. All theories focus on different aspects of human society; some focus on
class, others on race, others on gender. There is much overlap, and while many theorists talk about class, for
example, you will find that they think of it in markedly different ways. And the prominence of particular
theoretical perspectives follows definite trends. Some of these theories were very popular in the discipline at
one point (e.g., structural functionalism) but are barely considered now. However, it is important to understand
the origins of all theories of educational sociology in use today. Understanding the era of a theory—that is, the
historical circumstances under which it emerged—often also helps to understand the emphasis given to different
aspects of social life.

 
Figure 2.1 Theory and the Sociology of Education
Each theory is presented with a brief overview followed by examples from recent research, including Canadian
research where possible. This chapter is meant to be a synopsis of the various theories used by sociologists of
education; it is in no way an exhaustive overview of all theories within the discipline. Theories are presented in
roughly chronological order, starting with structural functionalism of the late 1890s and ending with critical
race theory, which is dominant today.

Terminology

When you are learning about sociological theories, you may run across numerous words that you have not
encountered before. Various theories are peppered with strange terminology. Theorists have adopted the use of
specialized words to capture concepts that often have very complex meanings. Below, many such instances of
these terms are discussed: cultural capital, habitus, racialization, and primary effects, just to name a few. Many
of these terms are specific to one particular body of theories or a particular theorist.

Some terms, however, are used throughout the discussion of theory rather frequently. These terms
are macrosocial theory, microsocial theory, mesosocial theory, middle-range theory, agency, and structure.

[h5p id=”2″]

Agency and Structure

What is more important in explaining social life—individuals or the social structures around them? This is the
question at the heart of the debate between agency and structure. Agency refers to the individual’s ability to act
and make independent choices, while structure refers to aspects of the social landscape that appear to limit or
influence the choices made by individuals. So, which one takes primacy—individual autonomy or socialization?
Of course, this question is not easily resolved and it is central to theoretical approaches in sociology. Some
theorists emphasize the importance of individual experience, therefore favouring agency. Those theorists who
favour agency are associated with microsociological explanations of social phenomena. Other theorists view
society as a large functional organism. These are macrosociologists, who see the social world as a series of
structures with varying degrees of harmony.

The agency–structure debate in social theory isn’t simply about which is more important; it also considers what
it is that ties the individual to society. Society is more than a collection of individuals—there is something
larger at work that makes those individuals a “society.” The structural functionalists and Marxists (i.e., macro
theorists) emphasize how social structures determine social life and maintain that individual actions can be
reinterpreted as the outcomes of structural forces. In other words, it may seem that individuals made decisions
to act in certain ways (e.g., get a specific job or take a specific course) and these theorists would argue that the
larger forces of society and structure constrain an individual’s choices in such a way that these are the only
decisions that can be made. Symbolic interactionists and phenomenologists are microsociological theorists who
focus on the subjective meanings of social life and how these meanings are responsible for creating individuals’
social worlds. Much research in social theory has focused on how to reconcile the structure and agency debate
by exploring how individuals are connected to society. Some reconciliatons are offered by Berger and
Luckmann (1969), Giddens (1984), Ritzer (2000), and Bourdieu (1986). Bourdieu’s concept of the habitus as a
bridge between structure and agency will be discussed later in this chapter. Similarly, Bronfenbrenner’s (1979)
discussion of the various ways and levels at which the child interacts with the environment will also be a
considered as way of bridging the gap between agency and structure.

Ontology and Epistemology

Also underlying theoretical perspectives are other assumptions about the social world. There are two very
important assumptions to consider when thinking about theories in the sociology of education—
ontology and epistemology.

[h5p id=”3″]

 
Figure 2.2 Various Terms in Sociological Theory and How They Relate to One Another

The theoretical perspectives considered in this text all have “taken-for-granted” ontological and epistemological
orientations in their worldviews. Figure 2.2 graphically illustrates how ontology, epistemology, agency,
structure, and the levels of social theory tend to correspond to each other on a spectrum. Microsocial theorists,
for example, tend to emphasize agency over structure, point to the importance of understanding subjective
reality, and use interpretive methods (in-depth qualitative interviews) when undertaking their studies. On the
opposite end of the spectrum are macrosocial theorists, who focus on structure and believe in an objective
reality that is to be learned about through positivist methods.

When learning about theories, it is important to think about what the theorist is assuming about social life.
Theorists approach their subject with specific orientations to the primacy of agency or structure,
micro/macro/meso sociological concerns, and specific beliefs about the nature of reality and how it should be
studied. There are stark distinctions among theoretical approaches and recognizing the assumptions made by
theorists in this way can help you understand the major differences in the “schools of thought” explored in the
rest of the chapter.

Structural Functionalism

Structural functionalism is a body of theories that understand the world as a large system of interrelated parts
that all work together. Emile Durkheim and Talcott Parsons are two major theorists in this area.

Émile Durkheim

French sociologist Émile Durkheim (1858–1917) is best known for his theory of moral regulation. He was also
the first sociologist of education. Durkheim was interested in explaining why the rise of individualism in society
did not result in widespread social breakdown. Durkheim wrote during a time when individualism was replacing
the authority of the Catholic church in France and the collectivist social bond built on religious homogeneity.
Societies no longer had singular dominant religions that bonded them together, or even dominant ethnicities.
How was society being held together? Durkheim’s answer was that social life was possible because of the trust
that existed among members of society. For society to function, there must exist an unwritten moral code that
people follow. This moral framework is at the core of Durkheim’s theory of society.

Because of this belief in the importance of a shared moral code, Durkheim considered it the role of education in
society to instill society’s morals in the minds (and actions) of young people. His writings on the subject stress
this point very much, as reflected in such titles as Moral Education (1925).1 He argued that it is only through
education that a given society can forge a commitment to an underlying set of common beliefs and values, as
well as create a strong sense of community or nationhood. This moral education prepares us to be productive
members of society by socializing and integrating us, whereby we not only understand but also value common
morals. We become autonomous adults but we are guided in our acts by the moral codes that have become
firmly ingrained in our beings.

Durkheim’s belief that society is held together by a common set of values and morals is at the heart of structural
functionalism because it emphasizes how the various parts of a social system work together. Society functions
because shared norms and morals create a sense of trust that leads to general social cohesion. Schools are
integral to this process because they instill the correct moral codes into children so that they can develop into
productive adults that contribute to society.

Talcott Parsons

Durkheim died in 1917 and structural functionalism, particularly as it related to the sociology of education, was
largely ignored until Talcott Parsons invigorated the discussion in the late 1950s with his widely cited article
“The School Class as a Social System: Some of Its Functions in American Society.” Like Durkheim, Parsons
argued that schools existed to socialize students. Up to school age, children are primarily socialized at home by
their families, but the values instilled in the child at home are particular to the family. The child is judged in a
particular way—as a member of his or her family. There is no way of judging his or her character relative to
other children. The school plays a central role in bridging individuals to society. It is within schools that
children are assessed in a standardized universalistic way that does not take their social background
characteristics into account. According to Parsons, schools level the playing field so that children are assessed
on the basis of merit—how they are judged is based only on how they perform on a standardized set of goals
regardless of social background.

In this way, school prepares young people for their roles as adults. Parsons argued that American schools
emphasized the values of achievement and equality of opportunity. Adults’ later placement in the workforce is a
reflection of how much they achieved and how successful they were in their schooling. The school is
functionally related to the workforce because it assigns people to their roles based on achievement, skills, and
capability. It needs to be emphasized that structural functionalists do not believe that inequality is non-existent.
On the contrary, they believe it is inherent to the functional system. Social inequality, in other words, exists
because it is functional in society. People who are at the lower ends of the educational and socioeconomic
spectrum are there because they fill necessary places there—and because they did not meet the qualifications for
higher placement.

As you may imagine, structural functionalism is not without its critics, and many criticisms are well-founded. In
particular, the approach fails to account for how many ascribed traits, like socioeconomic background, gender,
and race, appear to be so important in determining life outcomes. A plethora of research has provided
compelling evidence that the education system does not operate on a purely meritocratic basis. However,
despite its shortcomings, structural functionalism has been a useful framework for understanding how morality
and norms are spread across society and the school’s role in this process. See Box 2.1 for a recent analysis of
education in Canada using a Durkheimian perspective.

 
Box 2.1 – Understanding Past Practices through a Durkheimian Lens

Recently, Loren Lerner (2010) presented an analysis of how children were portrayed in photographs contained
in Canadian Pictorial, a monthly magazine published in Montreal, between 1906 and 1916. The magazine
published mostly photographs and, according to Lerner, these photos served to “uphold the ideals of Canada’s
Anglo-Saxon Protestant citizens who originated from Great Britain and to educate Canadians from non-British
backgrounds to be like them” (p. 234).

Lerner argues that the photos were part of a larger educational mandate, following Durkheim, to teach
young Canadians how to be “good” and “moral” citizens. Below, she comments on the implied meaning of a
photo of Aboriginal children taken in a residential school in 1914. In an attempt to assimilate the Aboriginal
peoples of Canada, residential schools were established by European-Canadians in the early twentieth century
and funded by churches and the government. Aboriginal children were taken away from their families and
communities and forced to abandon their language and culture. Many children experienced abuse in these
schools. These worldviews of a presumed collective conscience and correct moral character, argues Lerner,
are clearly depicted in the above photo:
English Canadians saw it as their social mission to impose particular meanings on these images of
children, and so manipulated them to cohere with a worldview that was embedded with class-
 consciousness and traditional beliefs and customs. This was a collective vision that seemed to
either ignore or reluctantly endorse the new realities of a society that was quickly changing . . .
Durkheim believed that education was intrinsically linked to a society’s notion of an ideal person.
The object of education was to develop in the child a certain number of physical, intellectual, and
moral states demanded by society. It could be argued that Durkheim’s concept of education as the
socialization of youth based on moral beliefs and traditions was consistent with Canadian
Pictorial’s objective to educate the Canadian child. (p. 257)

  The conviction that Aboriginal children could be assimilated is proudly documented in a full-
page professional photograph of a classroom of students at Mellapolla near Prince Rupert, British
Columbia. The banner-like title above the picture reads “Making Good Canadians of the Children
of the Red Man.” The students, who are of all ages and include a few adults, are sitting at
attention, while the female teacher at the back of the classroom stands in front of a very large map
of Canada. The caption reads: “Only within quite recent times have the Indians of that part of the
country come within close touch of civilization.” This statement was untrue. The text continues:
“Now there is a well-equipped little school for the Indian children with a young lady teacher from
England in charge. The photograph was specially taken for the ‘Pictorial’ by the first man to
penetrate far north of Prince Rupert with a moving-picture camera . . .” The words are loaded with
the supremacist connotation that the children, until now isolated, are being civilized by the white
race that has come to save them from their non-civilized condition. The children’s submissiveness
in front of the camera suggests that the experiment is succeeding, though most look unhappy or
uncomfortable in the setting. The last sentence of the caption is particularly telling: “The
expressions on the faces of the Indian children are worth studying.” The phrase “expressions on
the faces” speaks to a longstanding belief that the human face carries signs of character and
attributes. While it may hide a person’s true nature, if studied correctly, that nature will be
disclosed. The expressions of Aboriginal people were often said to be wild and savage, but if they
changed in an appropriate way, it signaled that the person had been successfully converted into a
peace-loving Christian. Similarly, indoctrination in the guise of education could lead to the
metamorphosis of Aboriginal children into acceptable Canadian children. (pp. 254–255)

  For Durkheim, the intervention of the state in the internal life of the family was mandatory
because the traditional family had the power to retard social development. He believed that society
was created through the development of a collective conscience shared by all different types of
children. As such, through education the child could be released from the bonds of a regressive
family and learn to become integrated into a social group. This was also true of the immigrant or
Aboriginal child, who could become a functioning member of society by learning to make a living
as part of an occupational group. Only when the normative functions once exercised by
institutions such as the family and religion turned into a relationship of mutual dependence could
these children become real Canadian citizens. (p. 259)
Source: Lerner, Loren. 2010. “Photographs of the Child in Canadian Pictorial from 1906 to 1916: A Reflection of the Ideas and Values of English Canadians about Themselves and ‘Other’
Canadians.” The Journal of the History of Childhood and Youth3(2):233–263. doi:10.1353/hcy.0.0098.

Karl Marx and Neo-Marxism

Karl Marx (1818–1883) was a German intellectual and revolutionary known for his creation and endorsement
of socialism and communism. Marx was a prolific writer, and among his many books were The Communist
Manifesto and three volumes of Das Kapital. Writing during the industrial revolution in Europe (a point in
history which markedly changed how goods were produced and thereby how people earned a living), Marx
believed that all social relations were rooted in economic relations, particularly the mode of production, which
refers to the way of producing goods and services. In capitalist systems, the mode of production is such that it
places workers and owners in direct opposition to one another. Both groups have differing interests: the
workers, for example, want to command the highest wage, while the owners, in order to drive the greatest
profit, want to pay the lowest possible wage. This relation of production under capitalism, or the social relations
that stem from capitalism, means that workers are always subservient and dependent on owners.

Marx viewed society as divided into distinct classes. At the most basic level, there were owners (the
bourgeoisie) and workers (the proletariat). He argued that the only way to achieve a just society was for the
proletariat to achieve class consciousness—to collectively become self-aware of their class group and the
possibilities for them to act in their own rational self-interest.
The idea of class is at the very core of Marx and Marxist scholarship. While Marx was a prolific writer, he
wrote relatively little on education. However, he did emphasize that class relations spilled into all aspects of
social life, therefore the role of education in society—capitalist society—would be a topic of much relevance
under a Marxist framework. In particular, the educational system of a society exists to maintain and reproduce
the economic systems of society. Institutions in society, including education, were the outcome of activities and
ideas that were created through the specific material conditions and circumstances surrounding them.

Neo-Marxism and Marxist Social Reproduction Analysis

The social activism of the 1960s in North America provided fertile ground for scholars to become receptive to
Marxist theory. In the 1970s, two important contributions were made to Marxist social reproduction analysis in
the sociology of education. The first was by Louis Althusser in 1970 and the second was by Samuel Bowles and
Herbert Gintis in 1976.

Althusser (1918–1990) was a French Marxist philosopher who wrote on a wide range of topics. In terms of the
sociology of education, he is best known for his theory of ideology. He believed that ideology was used to
socialize children into their subordinate statuses in the capitalist system. Not only did the education system
work to reinforce this socialization, but religion, the law, and the media (and other social structures) were used
to pass on this ideology of the ruling class. He referred to the forces of these social structures in reproducing the
social order as state ideological apparatus. To Althusser, ideology had two meanings. The first refers to the set
of routine material practices in which teachers and students are involved. For example, rooms in schools are
divided into spaces where certain people or groups of people accomplish certain jobs—the principal has his own
office, the teachers have their own social space, and the support staff have their own area. The second aspect of
ideology relates to “the imaginary relationship of individuals to their real conditions of existence” (Althusser
1971:153). In other words, ideology refers to “those systems of meanings, representations and values embedded
in the concrete practices that structure the unconsciousness of students” (Arnowitz and Giroux 1987:86). To
Althusser, this second aspect of ideology meant that individuals were engaged in unconscious acts that
reproduced their class positions without even being aware of such processes. The physical and cultural
surroundings reinforced this ideology, making it seem natural, although it was driven by the larger capitalist
agenda, which was responsible for reproducing inequalities in social class.

In 1976 Bowles and Gintis wrote Schooling in Capitalist America: Educational Reform and the Contradictions
of Economic Life, which is widely considered to be the most influential neo-Marxist work in the sociology of
education. The authors critically examined the education system in the United States and argued, in a Marxist
vein, that the way school was organized in the United States was designed to replicate the class system and to
benefit elites. There are two terms that are popularly associated with the work of Bowles and Gintis, and which
overlap somewhat with Althusser’s concept of ideology: the correspondence principle and the hidden
curriculum. The correspondence principle is the overarching theme of their book, which suggests that the
education system is set up to serve (or correspond to) the class-based system so that classes are reproduced and
so that elites maintain their positions. The authors provide evidence of this relationship by showing how the
statistical relationship between (1) intelligence and future earnings and (2) intelligence and future occupation
disappears once socioeconomic background is accounted for. In other words, class origins are the major driving
force behind the future jobs and incomes that young people achieve—not their intelligence. It is through
the hidden curriculum that schools are able to reproduce the class system. The hidden curriculum refers to the
subtle ways that students are taught to be co-operative members of the class system. There is a
“correspondence” between the economic system and the structure of school. Social relations and work
principles developed at a young age in the education system parallel those of the wider capitalist society.
Students must learn deference and be subservient to teachers, have respect for the established order, and accept
that they have no control over what they learn. Engraining these traits in young people “corresponds” with their
future roles in the labour market. From a young age, young people are therefore socialized to accept their class
placement in the capitalist economy.2

Marxist theory and neo-Marxism enjoyed popularity in the sociology of education in 1970s and 1980s, but has
since fallen from favour as the theoretical paradigm of choice among researchers. Neo-Marxism is a term that
generally refers to Marxist approaches from the twentieth century and beyond which in some way modify
original Marxist theory. In Canada, the 1970s and ’80s produced numerous important pieces of work in the
sociology of education under the Marxist/neo-Marxist umbrella, including Wotherspoon (1984, 1987) and
Livingstone (1983, 1985). However, one major criticism of the versions of Marxism described above is that
they tend to ignore other characteristics that are influential in the social landscape, such as gender and race or
ethnicity.
Marxist theory and neo-Marxism have largely been superseded by other theories in the discipline,
particularly postmodern theories of gender and race, which are discussed below. Some researchers in the
sociology of education refer to Marxist authors covered in this section and use certain aspects of their theory,
combined with other theories. For example, in their study of how working-class students from an inner-city
school in Vancouver understood Canadian citizenship, Kennelly and Dillabough (2008) used the framework
of phenomenology but appealed to Althusser’s concept of ideology to help them understand the position of
disadvantaged youth.

Makropolous (2010) has called upon Bowles and Gintis’s correspondence principle to explain Ottawa students’
attitudes to French immersion curriculum. She concluded that the French immersion program in Ottawa was
geared toward students who were preparing for university. Those who did not share that goal were not
successful in the program. See Box 2.2 for a discussion of how Marxist theory is related to approaches in
pedagogy.
Box 2.2 – Critical Pedagogy and Its Marxist Roots

Critical pedagogy is a term that frequently comes up in neo-Marxist approaches to teaching. Critical

pedagogy refers to a general philosophy of teaching that recognizes and attempts to rid the classroom and
teacher–student interactions of relationships and practices that perpetuate inequalities. Paulo Freire, a
Brazilian educator, is credited with starting this movement with the publication of his highly influential
book Pedagogy of the Oppressed in 1970. Freire uses a metaphor of “banking” to describe how the education
system is organized—students are empty banks and teachers deposit knowledge into them. Freire rejects this
model, arguing that this assumes that the object of education (the student) knows nothing and has nothing to
offer to the “educator,” which serves to dehumanize both the student and the teacher.

Many prominent education researchers have been influenced by the work of Freire, including Henry
Giroux and Peter McLaren. Giroux is currently a professor of English and Cultural Studies at McMaster
University and has published about 35 books and 300 scholarly articles. His most recent interests have
focused on how the media represent youth and negatively influence current pedagogical practices (Giroux
2010; Giroux and Pollock 2010).

Canadian-born McLaren is a professor of Education at UCLA and has written over 45 books, along with
hundreds of scholarly articles (see, for example, McLaren 2010; McLaren and Jaramillo 2010). McLaren is
known for his work in promoting a radical critical pedagogy which “attempts to create the conditions of
pedagogical possibility that enables students to see how, through the exercise of power, the dominant
structures of class rule protect their practices from being publicly scrutinized as they appropriate resources to
serve the interests of the few at the expense of the many” (McLaren 2010:5). Like the neo-Marxists described
above, McLaren understands schools as being a place of social reproduction, and his critical pedagogy is
aimed at dismantling this process which results in what he views as the continued oppression of many.

Critical pedagogical approaches are used extensively in Canadian research. For example, Barrett et al.
(2009) interviewed 47 teacher-educators from Ontario’s New Teacher Induction Program from eight different
faculties of education across Ontario. The researchers used elements of McLaren’s approach to critical
pedagogy, indicating that teacher-educators suggested that the curriculum of teacher training contained
elements that reduced the likelihood of teachers adopting a critical pedagogical perspective. One example is
the pairing of new teachers with senior colleagues who were not likely receptive to the idea of introducing
emancipatory teaching practices.

Other prominent scholars associated with neo-Marxism include Michael Apple and Paul Willis. Apple’s
work Ideology and Curriculum (1979) was critical of Bowles and Gintis, indicating that they had failed to
account for the role of ideology and culture in reproducing systems of domination. He agreed that economic
reproduction (i.e., reproducing social classes) was indeed an outcome of schooling, but that it went beyond
simple economic aspects. To Apple, social reproduction was also the result of ideological and cultural practices
that occurred within schools. Schools serve to educate students and as such they convey knowledge to students.
This knowledge is a particular type of knowledge, however, which is considered “legitimate knowledge.” It
reflects the ideologies and cultural practices of the ruling classes, and passing this type of knowledge on to
students also contributes to social reproduction. More recently, Apple has been interested in the rise of neo-
conservatism in the United States and its influence on creating American educational policy (based upon right-
wing political ideology). Aurini and Davies (2005) have considered Apple’s perspective in their research on the
growth of homeschooling in Canada. They agree with Apple that to some extent many parents who opt to
homeschool are politically conservative, but they trace the growth of homeschooling to a more general trend of
parents being closely involved in their children’s education (i.e., “intensive” or “helicopter” parenting) rather
than any particular politically based movement.
Another neo-Marxist theorist is Paul Willis, who is best known for his resistance theory. His groundbreaking
work Learning to Labour (1977) was an ethnographic study of working-class adolescent boys in the UK. In
particular, Willis examined how these youth resisted the schools’ attempt to control them by rejecting the values
associated with the middle class. They openly rejected the value of the intellectual offerings associated with
school work. They also openly rejected the authoritative structure associated with the school. The findings from
this research led him to coin the term resistance theory, which referred to how marginalized students do not
comply with the values, discipline, and expected behaviours of middle class school structures. Instead of being
viewed as acts of delinquency, these acts of rule breaking are interpreted as a class-based resistance.
Paradoxically, however, these resisting behaviours also served to reproduce their class position—preventing the
acquisition of the skills and training required for jobs outside the realm of manual labour.

Raby and Domitrek’s (2007) more recent study of rule-breaking by Canadian high school students largely
confirms Willis’s theory. They found that adolescent boys from marginalized backgrounds tended to resist the
White middle-class techniques for dispute resolution (i.e., “talking it out”), favouring physical aggression. They
were also more likely to have been in conflicts with teachers and lacked the middle class cultural knowledge
required to navigate the school system effectively.

Weber and Neo-Weberian Approaches

Max Weber (1868–1920) was a German sociologist who, along with Marx and Durkheim, is widely regarded as
being a “founding father” of sociology. Weber, however, differed from Marx and Durkheim in a very important
way. Unlike Marx and Durkheim, who were macro-theorists, his theory does not describe the overall nature of
society. Instead, his micro-theoretical ideas pointed to how people both construct society and are constrained by
it at the same time (King 1980). Weber focused on education in many of his writings.

One of Weber’s most famous analyses is contained within The Protestant Ethic and the Spirit of
Capitalism, where he identifies the growth and success of capitalism as being largely contingent upon the
spread of Protestantism in Northern Europe. The values and tenets associated with this branch of Christianity
encourage hard work, and the subdivision of Calvinism provided even more support for his association between
the rise of capitalism and religious affiliation. Calvinists believed in predestination; in other words, one’s
“destination” (i.e., heaven or hell) was determined at birth. As a result of this uncertainty, people looked for
clues about their fate. They consequently interpreted success in business and in work as a signal that they were
held in God’s favour. Weber argued that the religious beliefs at the time facilitated the growth of capitalism. As
time went on and beliefs became more secularized, capitalism was so entrenched and established within society
that the initial complimentary religious attitudes that allowed it to develop were no longer necessary. Unlike
Marx, Weber argued that ideas were central to the social groups and institutions we observe. His understanding
of ideology is one that, in contrast to Marx, is based upon subjective understandings held by people, not
overarching dominant forces that control individuals.

Linked to his interest in religion and its place in society was Weber’s analysis
of rationalization. Rationalization occurred when society became more secular, scientific knowledge began to
develop, and an increasing reliance on scientific and technological explanations began to emerge. Instead of
being based on customs or religious belief, more and more social actions were the outcome of beliefs related to
scientific thought. Rationalization paved the way for what Weber referred to as “rational-legal authority,” which
is a type of political leadership that is regarded as legitimate due to being rooted in established laws (which
themselves are the outcome of rationalization). Closely related to the concepts of rationalization and rational-
legal authority is bureaucracy, which is an administrative structure that follows a clear hierarchical structure
and involves very specific rules and chains of command. If you are enrolled in a post-secondary institution like
a college or university, you have had first-hand experience of bureaucracy. If you want to appeal a grade, for
example, you must fill out the right forms, send them to the right office, and wait until various people in the
bureaucracy (professors, deans, heads of departments, grade appeal committees) read your appeal and make a
decision on it. The decision then trickles back to you in the reverse manner. Bureaucracies organize work in
specific ways and can be frustrating because they are, by design, inflexible.

In addition to his contributions above, Weber also provided a unique interpretation of the nature of social
stratification. As discussed earlier, Marx indicated that there were two social classes: the proletariat and the
bourgeoisie. These classes were entirely determined by the relationship that individuals had to the means of
production. Max Weber, in contrast, had a more complex understanding of stratification, identifying class and
status groups as the two major distributors of power within a society.

However, both Marx and Weber argued that social classes had the tendency to reproduce themselves. This
tendency for reproduction is, in fact, the ultimate feature of classes. The concept of status is central to
understanding how Weber understood how society was divided into groups with competing interests. Weber
defined status as being associated with honour and privilege, independent of class membership. According to
Weber, status groups are moral communities, concerned with upholding the privilege of their members in
society. Weber also argued that status groups could cut across classes and thus acted to work against class
unification. As well, status groups also secure power through “social closure,” whereby they restrict rewards to
those who possess certain characteristics (social or physical) (Parkin 1982). Weber indicated that it did not
matter which criteria were used to distinguish “outsiders”: “whatever suggests itself most easily is seized upon”
(Parkin 1982:102, quoting Weber 1968:1012). The result of this social closure would be to secure resources and
advantages at the expense of other groups.

Credentialism

Status groups often limit membership based on credentials. Credentialism is a major theme in Weberian (and
neo-Weberian) discussions of the sociology of education. Credentialism refers to the requirement of obtaining
specific qualifications for membership to particular groups. More specifically, the actual skills obtained through
these credentials are often not explicitly associated with the job’s task. Many entry-level office jobs or jobs in
the civil service require new recruits to have a university degree, although the skills required in these jobs may
have nothing to do with the degree that individuals have. This is an instance of credentialism. People with many
years of practical experience in a given field but who have no degree may be denied jobs or promotions because
they have no formal credentials.

Randall Collins is probably the best-known sociologist of education working in a neo-Weberian framework.
Like neo-Marxism, neo-Weberian approaches refer to modifications to Weber’s theories that have occurred in
the twentieth century forward, but still retain many of the core elements of Weber’s writings. In 1979 he
published The Credential Society, a book that continues to be influential in the study of credentialism. He
coined the term credential inflation to refer to the decreased value of the expected advantage associated with
educational qualifications over time. You may be familiar with the popular notion that a bachelor’s degree is
now equivalent to what a high school diploma “used to” be. This is an example of credential inflation—that
expected returns to a university degree now are what the high school diploma used to be “worth” a generation
ago. See Box 2.3 for examples of studies in the sociology of education drawing on Weberian and neo-Weberian
perspectives.
Box 2.3 – Weberian Approaches to the Study of the Sociology of Education

Weber’s (1951) major study of how occupational status groups controlled entry with credentials was done in
China, where he described how administrative positions were granted to individuals based upon their
knowledge of esoteric Confucian texts, rather than on any skills that were particular to that job (Brown 2001).
Weber described how the “testing rituals that gained one admittance to sectarian religious communities and
the various forms of economic and political credit they afforded were predecessors to the formalized
educational credential requirements for employment in the modern era. Formal educational claims of
competence . . . were inseparable from jurisdictional issues (politics) of employment, that is, from position
monopolies that were based on substantively unassailable cultural qualifications” (Brown 2001:21). In other
words, credentialism, in its many forms and through many processes, has been around in various cultures for
some time and serves to reproduce culture and protect status groups.

Taylor (2010) recently examined credential inflation in high school apprenticeships in Canada. She notes
that education policy-makers have shown an interest in making the “academic” and “vocational” streams in
high school education more comparable by mixing these curricula. The typical trajectory is for teens to attend
secondary schools where they can take courses in various subjects (vocational and academic) and receive a
diploma upon credit completion. However, Taylor’s data analysis showed that vocational education occupied
a vague position within secondary education, particularly when credentialism was being emphasized. Trades
training continues to be stigmatized and associated with less intelligent students, despite efforts to integrate
the programs. Instead of an integration of these programs, the researcher instead saw a pronounced effect of
educational stratification and an “intensification of positional competition” where students tried to further
differentiate themselves in the labour market.

Foster (2008) traces the professionalization of medicine in Canada in his analysis of foreign-trained
doctors. The medical profession is a status group that requires certain credentials for entry. In Canada, that
credential is a medical degree from Canada (or a recognized foreign institution). Foster asks why there is a
doctor shortage while there are so many foreign-trained doctors in Canada who are unable to practise. He
argues that the professional closure of the medical profession in Canada is regulated so that foreign-born,
non-European and non-White practitioners are at a serious disadvantage.
Institutional Theory

John Meyer (along with his associates) is another sociologist of education (currently professor emeritus of
sociology at Stanford University) who also questions the overall legitimacy of credentialism. His developments
in the theories around sociology of education were largely a reaction to the arguments put forth by the structural
functionalists and the Marxist scholars in the 1970s. He has noted that educational systems have expanded
worldwide, but that this expansion is not necessarily related to labour market demands. Known as institutional
theory, Meyer’s central argument is that the global expansion of education has not been the result of
institutional or workforce requirements for this level of training, but rather that of a wider democratic belief in
the good of expanding education associated with institutional rituals and ceremonies that make it legitimate,
rather than actual practices in the workforce that necessitate such levels of training (Meyer and Rowan 1977,
1978; Meyer, Boli, Thomas, and Ramirez 1997). He has further argued that there is a loose coupling (or a weak
association) between the belief in the importance of expanding schooling in democratic societies (reflected in
government and political positions) and the actual need for such skills. Loose coupling also exists when
educational ideals are expressed (again, perhaps by government agencies or in policies), but the actual ability to
attain those skills is rather limited.

Aurini (2006) provides useful illustrations of loose coupling in a Canadian context. She describes how public
education in Canada has “loosely coupled by adhering to common institutional scripts (e.g., hiring credentialed
staff), by avoiding performance indicators such as standardized tests, and by adopting vague and expansive
language to describe organizational activities, such as ‘social development’ and ‘emotional intelligence’” (p.
89). Aurini goes on to argue that Ontario public schools have “recoupled” in recent years by introducing
standardized tests in an attempt to demonstrate competency. Her research on private schooling businesses (i.e.,
private tutoring companies like Kumon or Sylvan Learning Centre) demonstrates that these institutions are
examples of loose coupling because they do not make promises of improved grades (which would be a logical
coupling of tutoring and educational outcomes), but focus on their services as providing the outcome of
increased “skills” and self-esteem.

Symbolic Interaction

Symbolic interaction is a microsociological approach to social theory that emerged in the 1960s and is closely
associated with the work of George Herbert Mead (1863–1931). Mead is regarded as a founder of what is
known today as social psychology.

Mead and the Development of the Self

Symbolic interaction theory in general asserts that the world is constructed through meanings that individuals
attach to social interactions. Mead’s approach to understanding social life was grounded in his understanding of
the steps in child development. In 1934, he used the terms “I” and “Me” to refer to the process that individuals
go through in understanding themselves in a social world. A child enters the world only understanding the
concept of “I”—he or she is mostly unaware of the social world except as it relates to fulfilling his or her own
needs. The “I” is controlled by impulses and basic human needs and desires. As a child gets older, the social
part of the self—the “Me”—develops. The child learns about other people through the understanding and
meaning he or she attributes to gestures. The “Me” develops through interaction with other people and through
the social environment. This happens by learning how individuals respond to specific acts and gestures made by
the individual. The “Me” is the social self. The “I” is our immediate response to others.

Mead posited that there are two distinct stages that a child goes through in order to realize “Me.” The first is
the play stage, where children learn how to take the attitude of a single particular other. For example, children
may play house and act as “mommy” or “daddy.” This stage, however, is very limiting because it allows the
child to take on only two possible roles. The second stage—where full development of the self occurs—is
the game stage, where a child learns to take on the attitude of everyone else. By being able to internalize the
roles of several others, he or she is about to function in organized groups in society. By being able to take on
various roles at a time, he or she understands the roles and attitudes of multiple people. This understanding of
collective attitudes of a society is what Mead referred to as the generalized other. The generalized other keeps
individuals connected to society by an understanding of shared meanings; it can be considered a bridge between
the individual (micro) and the wider society (macro).

Symbols and Herbert Blumer

In addition to these concepts, Mead emphasized the importance of significant symbols and social
life. Significant symbols are generated vocally through the use of language and are embedded in a deep web of
meaning. One task of symbolic interaction (SI) is to understand how people attribute meaning to different
symbols. This aspect of SI was more fully developed by Herbert Blumer (1900–1987), a student of Mead’s.
Blumer (1969) extended Mead’s theory and focused on three basic concepts: meaning, language, and thought.
People’s behaviours toward things are based upon the meaning that such things have for them. “Things” can
refer to objects, other people, ideas, and the self. The meaning that people attribute to things is derived largely
from complex social interactions that individuals have amongst themselves that involve vocal language. There
is also no pre-existing objective meaning—meaning is continuously created dependent on particular contexts
and is constantly negotiated through thought. In creating meaning, the social actor must be able to take different
points of view (i.e., the generalized other).
Box 2.4 – Recent Examples of Symbolic Interaction Theory Used in Education Research

How do ethnic minority students perceive racism in their teachers? This is the question Stevens (2008) asked
in his study of Turkish students in a vocational school in Belgium. Stevens was interested in exploring how
ethnic minorities in a White, Flemish educational institution defined racism and how particular contexts and
interactions between students influenced the students’ perceptions of racism. He found that students made
different claims about racism based on perception, which were very specific to students and particular
contexts. The students regarded “racist-joking” by teachers to be perceived as racist only if there was a
definite racist intent. He also found that students did not evaluate teachers’ ability to teach based on their
perceived racism of that teacher; perceived racists were also considered good teachers by some students.

Alternatively, Rafalovich (2005) used an SI approach to examine how children’s behaviour was
“medicalized.” Interviewing teachers, parents, and clinicians from two cities in North America (one in
Canada, the other in the United States), Rafalovich examined language to reveal how certain childhood
behaviours were contextualized by educators as attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). Typically,
the behaviour was escalated to a potential “medical” problem (rather than just an individual behavioural
characteristic of being a child, such as “daydreaming”) when teachers started to compare such children with
other children in the class. While not denying the existence of ADHD as a medical problem, the author
argues that this process often acted to assign meanings to behaviours as a problematic medical condition,
instead of typical childhood behaviours. Rafalovich argues from an SI perspective that the meaning of the
behaviour of acts such as “daydreaming” are open to interpretation. The author examines how teachers, who
are not certified to make official diagnoses, play an important role in the medicalization of children’s
behaviours.

Within the sociology of education, symbolic interactionist perspectives are useful for examining how meaning
is attributed to language. When drawing upon an SI theoretical framework, researchers are much more likely to
reference Blumer or successive theorists in the area (e.g., Denzin 1989), rather than referring to Mead. The
general spirit of the research, however, remains the same: examining how meaning is created through the use of
language in various social settings. See Box 2.4 for recent examples of research in the sociology of education
employing an SI approach.

Phenomenology

The term phenomenology is used to refer to a variety of philosophies that span many disciplines. Here, the
discussion is based upon phenomenological sociology, which originated with the work of Austrian social
scientist Alfred Schütz (1899–1959) in the early 1930s. Schütz’s work was very much influenced by the
writings of Max Weber. While he admired Weber’s work, he felt that it had a serious deficit in that it
overlooked the meaning that individuals attributed to their actions.

Schütz (1970, 1972) found a way to manage this perceived shortcoming of Weber by borrowing insights from
the phenomenological philosopher Edmund Husserl (1859–1938). Husserl’s focus as a phenomenological
philosopher was in the area of formal structures of consciousness. Schütz’s theory emerged as a blend of
Weberian theory with Husserl’s understanding of consciousness (Hamilton 1991). He agreed with Weber that
social sciences were different from the natural sciences and therefore required special techniques for the study
of the subject (an interpretivist epistemological orientation). He argued that people are continuously trying to
make sense of the world and that the social scientists must recognize that we are engaged in a process of trying
to make sense of the process of other people trying to make sense. Unlike those he or she is observing, however,
social researchers have a “disinterested attitude” (Schütz 1970) because they are concerned with making sense
out of what they see as a purely cognitive exercise—not because they have any practical interest in the
outcomes of the interactions they are analyzing. Therefore, social scientists must study unintentional
consciousness—or the meanings attributed to actions in everyday life. The term “life-world” (Lebenswelt in
German) is one closely associated with Schütz’s work and refers to the analytical attention given to meaning in
the lived world.

Many sociologists since Schütz have taken up the phenomenological position. Berger and Luckmann further
popularized the approach in the late 1960s with the publication of The Social Construction of Reality. More
recently, Scanlon (2009) used a Schützian approach to studying the learning experiences of Canadian adult
learners. Using this approach, the author was able to understand the complex life-worlds of adult students, and
identify specific segments which helped or distracted them from their studies. Through the use of
phenomenological sociology, Scanlon was able to produce a nuanced understanding of the complexities of adult
education that may enable adult educators to better understand their world, which is of growing importance as
more adults return to education for retraining.

Wong and Lohfield (2008) similarly studied the experiences of immigrants with foreign medical doctor
credentials who had to re-enter medical school in Canada in order to have their credentials recognized. Using a
phenomenological approach, the researchers analyzed interviews they had undertaken with 12 recertifying
medical students in Ontario. The researchers’ analysis revealed that the recertifying doctors experienced many
barriers to gaining access to retraining. After they were accepted into recertification programs, they then went
through periods of loss tied to their professional devaluation in their host country. They also experienced a
sense of disorientation during training because they did not know how to act in social situations around their
peers, not understanding their “expected roles” as international medical graduates. The participants described
various coping strategies that helped them adapt to their situation. Like Scanlon (2009), Wong and Lohfield
indicate that information from their study can be used to assist medical educators of the unique needs that
recertifying doctors may bring to the medical classroom.

Cultural Reproduction Theory

Cultural reproduction theory is most closely associated with the work of French sociologist Pierre Bourdieu
(1930–2002). Bourdieu is one of many theorists associated with what is known as poststructuralism.
Poststructuralism is a reaction to structural functionalism, which favours the importance of social structures in
explanation of social life over individual action. Poststructuralism is associated mostly with the writings of a
fairly diverse set of French philosophers (including Jacques Derrida and Michel Foucault) whose only
substantial area of agreement was that structuralism was flawed. There is no tidy definition that encompasses all
the major theorists associated with poststructuralism—their areas of writing were all very disparate.

Like many social theorists, Bourdieu wrote on a host of topics. Bourdieu was markedly influenced by Marxism,
as he believed that social position (class) greatly determined the life chances of people. But he disagreed with
the Marxist notion of class and argued that social stratification processes emerged from a variety of difference
sources, such as the forms of capital. Bordieu’s writings that pertain specifically to education (1977, 1984,
1986) will be focused on here and deal with the role of cultural reproduction in the education system. Like
many theories, it is necessary to understand various terms the theorists in question used.

The Forms of Capital

Many social theorists talk about “capital.” The term capital is borrowed from the discipline of economics and is
used to describe tangible assets. The idea of capital is typically associated with money and assets that are easily
converted to money. Social theorists have borrowed the term capital and used it to refer to other assets that
people possess, such as their social skills and cultural knowledge.

Bourdieu is perhaps most well-known in the field of education for his contributions in the area of cultural
capital. It is not easy to define cultural capital, as Bourdieu himself defined the term in several different ways
throughout the course of his writings. But the characteristic that his various definitions shared is
that cultural capital refers to high status cultural knowledge possessed by individuals. High status cultural
knowledge is acquired by experience and familiarity with high culture activities, such as going to the opera,
ballet, or theatre as well as the appreciation of art, literature, and classical musical, and theatre attendance. It is
theorized that familiarity with these forms of leisure allows individuals to give off signals that give them
advantage in high status circles. Bourdieu argued that children with cultural capital were appraised more
favourably by their teachers than children who did not possess this form of capital, even though this form of
capital did not necessarily impact on how well the child was doing in school. Familiarity with high culture may
give a child more sophisticated language skills, for example, which may result in the teacher rating that child
more positively.

Cultural capital is one vehicle through which culture is reproduced. By cultural reproduction, it is meant that
the high status classes reward individuals who exhibit the traits and possess the knowledge of the upper class,
therefore maintaining their power. Having cultural capital gives individuals access to exclusive social circles
that those who do not possess cultural capital cannot penetrate. The honing of (or investment in) this capital
occurs over the life course. In the case of upper class families, children are groomed to have certain cultural
knowledge and mannerisms from a very young age. Children exposed to high culture will adopt the language
and knowledge associated with participation in these leisure pursuits, and as a result of this, may give cues to
teachers that will result in their preferential treatment in the classroom (Bourdieu 1977). These signals are very
similar to what Bernstein (1971) referred to as “language codes.” This is essentially Bourdieu’s argument about
how inequality persists in schools, despite efforts to base academic achievement solely on merit and ability.

As well, cultural capital functions by a principle of cumulative advantage (for those who possess it) or
cumulative disadvantage (for those who do not have any). While there are types of tastes and styles associated
with all social classes or subgroups, only those that are able to potentially further economic and/or social
resources are considered cultural capital.

In addition to cultural capital, Bourdieu (1986) identified (at least) two other broad types of capital. The first
is economic capital, which refers to characteristics that are quickly and relatively easily converted into money.
Educational attainment, job skills, and job experience are included in this type of capital as their transformation
into money is a well-understood process. The second type of capital is social capital, which Bourdieu
conceptualized as micro-based in networks and individual relationships that potentially led to access to
resources.

These forms of capital do not exist in isolation from one another, but are closely linked. Each form of capital is
convertible into another form. Economic capital is at the root of all capitals such that economic reward can be
derived from both social and cultural capital. For example, signals of cultural knowledge (such as the ability to
speak in an “educated manner”) are rewarded in the classroom, which is easily converted into a type of
economic capital—educational attainment.

As Bourdieu was a poststructuralist, his theoretical positionings were somewhat in response to structuralism.
Bourdieu was not content to advocate a theory according to which individuals were either bound by social
structures or where individual agency was prioritized. His solution to the structure/agency problem was
the habitus. The habitus can be understood as embodied social structure—that piece of social structure that we
all carry around in our heads, and which largely regulates our actions. The habitus guides our behaviours, our
dispositions, and our tastes. It originates from our lived experience of class and the social structures in which we
have become familiarized and socialized. Our decisions may be our own decisions, but they are greatly guided
and restricted by the social structure that exists within each of us (see Figure 2.3).

Field is another major concept used by Bourdieu. Field refers to social settings in which individuals and their
stocks of capital are located. Fields are important because it is only within these contexts that we can understand
how the rules of the field interact with individuals’ “capitals” and their habitus to produce specific outcomes.

 
Figure 2.3 Agency, Structure, and Bourdieu’s Concept of Habitus
Box 2.5 – Applying Bourdieu’s Theory to the Study of Education

Lehmann (2009) used Bourdieu’s ideas of cultural capital and habitus to explore how first-generation
university students from working class backgrounds integrated into the culture of the university. Being “first
generation,” these individuals were the first persons from their families to enter university. Bourdieu himself
argued that universities (especially elite ones) are places where the possession of cultural capital is
particularly important for success. Students from working class backgrounds, however, are at a disadvantage
because they typically do not possess much cultural capital. Lehmann was interested to see how these
individuals coped with being university students—the university being a field that was mismatched to their
class, and stocks of capital. Lehmann conducted qualitative interviews with 55 first-generation students at a
large university in Ontario at two points: (1) at the beginning of their studies in their first year, and (2) at the
beginning of their second year. Lehmann found that students compensated for their deficiencies in cultural
capital by focusing on aspects of their social class background that they felt gave them an advantage. The
habitus of the working class students was characterized by a strong work ethic, maturity, and independence.
 Taylor and Mackay (2008) studied the creation of alternative programs within the Edmonton Public School
Board. The EPSB is well-known for its policies on school choice and alternatives, and combined with
provincial policies from the 1970s, much flexibility has existed for the creation of alternative programs. The
authors focus on the creation of three alternative programs between 1973 and 1996: a Cree program, a fine
arts program, and a Christian program. The authors note that alternative programs are tied to fields that are
stratified by race and class. They noted that some proponents of the different schools found it easier to access
social and cultural capital to exert influence than others. Advocates for the Cree school had to find
individuals with cultural capital (university professors) to back them in order to be considered legitimate,
while advocates for the Christian school had individuals with vast stocks of economic, social, and cultural
capital in the core of their membership.

The school setting is an example of a field (Bourdieu and Wacquant 2002). Students bring their social, cultural,
and economic capital and their habitus to this field, and the power relations within this field (teachers,
principals) interact with them to bring about certain outcomes. Getting good grades is valued in the educational
field, but a student’s cultural capital may impact on his or her grades because teachers have been found to
reward students who possess cultural capital more favourably than students who do not (Bourdieu and
Wacquant 2002). See Box 2.5 for how Canadian researchers have used Bourdieu’s framework in education
research.

Social Capital Approaches

While Bourdieu discusses multiple forms of capital, other theorists have focused solely on the important role
that social capital plays in the educational outcomes of young people. Most notable among these theorists is
James Coleman (1946–1995), who found that children who attended Catholic and private high schools (both of
which are privately funded in the United States) had a much lower dropout rate than those who went to public
schools, even when parental socioeconomic characteristics were taken into consideration. Coleman (1988)
argued that it was the social capital in the students’ communities and families that accounted for this difference,
arguing that social ties were much stronger among those who went to Catholic and private high schools.
Coleman theorized that children’s educational achievement was driven by strong parental interest, which had
additional effects that extended into the community. Additionally, strong bonds between parents and children,
and among extended family, led to intergenerational closure which resulted in informal social control and
monitoring of children.

In contrast to Bourdieu, Coleman was a theorist mostly influenced by rational choice theory—the idea that
people’s actions are the result of decisions based on reason. Coleman argued that social capital was not simply a
possession of individuals but that it was a public good whose benefits may be received not only by those who
actively contribute to it, but also by all members of the social structure. Being active in a parent–teacher
association may, for example, benefit an individual’s child, but it will also serve to strengthen the ties within the
community, which has positive effects for all members.

Field (2003:24) documents how Coleman’s later definition of social capital is explicated almost exclusively in
terms of children’s development. The ties that develop in a community through the civic engagement of parents
have the “spillover” effect of not only improving the educational attainment of children, but also ensuring their
healthy cognitive development. Coleman (1988) asserted that social capital is something that individuals can
possess but that it also serves to reinforce the social structure. However, Coleman’s rational choice background
meant that he interpreted the “public good” aspect act of investing in social structures not as an intended
consequence of individuals’ actions, but rather as an “unintended consequence of their pursuit of self-interest”
(Field 2003:25).

Coleman also contrasts with Bourdieu in his understanding of the holders of social capital and the good that it
served. While Bourdieu maintained that social capital was held by the privileged elite, Coleman’s
conceptualization of social capital involves all members of the social structure. Field also indicates that
Coleman’s view is
. . . naively optimistic; as a public good, social capital is almost entirely benign in its
functions, providing a set of norms and sanctions that allow individuals to co-operate for
mutual advantage, and with little or no “dark side.” Bourdieu’s usage of the concept, by
contrast, virtually allows only for a dark side for the oppressed and a bright side for the
privileged. (2003:26)

The third major theorist associated with social capital is Robert Putnam (b. 1941). To Putnam, “social capital
refers to connections among individuals—social networks and the norms of reciprocity and trustworthiness that
arise from them” (2000:19). In this view, social capital is more a characteristic of societies than individuals
(Portes 1998). Putnam emphasized membership to voluntary organizations as key indicators of social capital in
communities, with the steady decline since the 1960s as proof that social capital is on the decline in the United
States.

Putnam identified two different types of social capital: bonding capital and bridging capital. Bonding capital is
considered “exclusive” in the sense that it occurs within established groups in order to reinforce group
solidarity, whereas bridging capital is “inclusive” in that it is used for information diffusion and linkage to
other groups. Bonding capital is useful for reinforcing group solidarity and identity, while bridging capital is
useful for diffusion of information and network expansion (Putnam 2000:22–23).

While Putnam regarded social capital as a characteristic that is contingent upon the social and economic
specificities of individual societies, Field (2003) notes that Putnam has been criticized for failing to clearly
account for the processes underlying the creation and maintenance of social capital in communities. Like
Coleman, Putnam’s understanding of social capital is rather celebratory of “the good old days,” with little
consideration of the potentially negative aspects of social capital. Both Coleman and Putnam regard social
capital as a remedy for various social problems in American cities. See Box 2.6 for an example of how social
capital theory has been used to study university education in Canada.
Box 2.6 – Immigrants and the Role of Social Capital in University Education

Abada and Tenkorang (2009) were interested in social capital’s impact on the pursuit of university education
among immigrants in Canada. Particularly, they wanted to examine how different ethnic groups used
different forms of social capital to their advantage. Social capital theorists tend to discuss social capital in
very broad terms, and therefore there are a lot of different ways of understanding what social capital actually
is. Coleman emphasized the role of the family in providing social support while Putnam focused on civic
engagement (ties to the community). Abada and Tenkorang looked at the role of family characteristics
(including how much of a sense of “family belonging” individuals had), the extent to which individuals
participated in community events, and how much trust they had for family members, people in their
neighbourhood, and people in their workplace. Abada and Tenkorang also argued that language usage among
friends could be thought of as social capital, as speaking in one’s mother tongue may be understood as
maintaining ties among members of ethnic groups.

Abada and Tenkorang found that intergenerational relations in the family facilitated the pursuit of post-
secondary education among immigrants, supporting Coleman’s idea for the importance of intergenerational
closure (i.e., parents interacting with parents of other children) on achievement. In terms of minority
language retention, however, the researchers found that this can actually inhibit academic achievement,
suggesting that while it may have positive effects in connecting individuals to their communities, it may also
prevent them from making connections with external social networks that lead to a larger variety of
opportunities. The researchers also found that different aspects of social capital mattered more to different
ethnic groups. In particular, trust was found to be much more important to the success of Black youth
compared to the other ethnic groups examined. The researchers suggest that a chronic misunderstanding of
this group’s culture by the education system has potentially led to a greater mistrust of school authorities,
which may have made trust a key issue among Black youth.

Micro/Meso/Macro Aspects of Social Capital

Social capital, as described above, is unique in that it is one of the few concepts associated with sociology of
education that is explicitly discussed in terms of its micro, meso, and macro aspects (see Figure 2.4). Bourdieu
discusses social capital as a characteristic that people have—their connections and networks. This is a micro-
social approach to social capital. Putnam, on the other hand, speaks of social capital as it being a property of
societies—a very macrosocial approach. He also suggests the idea of bridging capital, which connects groups to
each other—which is a mesosocial idea. Coleman, in contrast, speaks of social capital that emerges out of
individual actions (e.g., the micro acts of parents) that serves to create closer-knit communities (a macro effect).
To Coleman (1987), the ability of individual effects to serve the public group was evidence of a micro–macro
linkage.

 
Figure 2.4 The Micro, Meso, and Macro Levels of Social Capital Theory

Social Mobility Approaches

Social mobility approaches within the sociology of education examine how social class positions influence the
educational achievement and attainment of individuals. Social mobility refers to the ability of individuals to
move from one social class to another. Much previous research has shown that social class background matters
for educational achievement and attainment—this is not news. But how researchers approach this process does
indeed vary considerably. Below, the approaches of Raymond Boudon and John Goldthorpe are considered.

French sociologist Raymond Boudon (b. 1934) identified what he called primary and secondary effects of class
differentials on educational attainment (Boudon 1973). Primary effects are differences between classes and
educational attainment that relate directly to academic performance. In other words, children from working-
class families doing worse on standardized tests than their peers in the higher social classes would be
considered a primary effect. Primary effects are dependent on characteristics of the family of origin, such as
wealth, material conditions, and socialization.

Secondary effects, however, refer to the difference between the classes and educational attainment that relate
to educational choices irrespective of educational performance. In a very simplistic example, a secondary effect
would be if two individuals who were doing equally well at school were from opposite social classes and the
working-class student decided to pursue an apprenticeship in the trades and the middle- or upper-class student
decided to go to university. Unlike primary effects, secondary effects are entirely dependent upon choices made
by individuals and their families. In a similar vein, many researchers have found that even when children from
the working class perform at the same levels as middle- and upper-class children, they tend to have less
ambitious educational goals (Jackson, Erikson, Goldthorpe, and Yaish 2007).

One assumption underlying the idea of secondary effects in Boudon’s theory is that children from the lower
social classes have limited ambitions because they are socialized that way. Boudon (1981) argued that middle-
class families had to encourage their own children to aspire to higher levels in order to simply maintain their
status. Working-class children, however, may not be pushed as hard because the requirements to maintain the
same social class is necessarily lower than for the middle classes. Researchers from around the world have
asked how relevant primary and secondary effects are on the academic achievement of children. Nash (2005)
found that in Canada, the secondary effects were found among high school students, showing that students who
had high aspirations were likely to have higher grades and come from higher social origins. Nash also found,
however, that these secondary effects on school achievement were relatively minor compared to overall primary
effects.

Dutch researchers (Kloosterman, Ruiter, de Graaf, and Kraaykamp 2009) have also explored how primary and
secondary effects impact on the transition to post-secondary education (i.e., beyond high school). They also
explored whether secondary effects had diminished over time, given the emphasis placed on the importance of
post-secondary credentials in Dutch culture. The authors found that in Dutch society, the importance of primary
effects in determining educational inequality had grown between 1965 and 1999.

Similarly, Swedish (Erikson 2007) and British (Jackson et al. 2007) research has also found that the impact of
primary effects on the transition to post-secondary education has significantly increased over time. In the
Netherlands and Sweden, the lessened effect of secondary effects (and increase of primary effects) from the late
1960s to the 1990s were at a similar level, while in Britain the effect of primary characteristics was much
greater. Overall, this suggests that cross-nationally, individual social backgrounds are at the root of educational
inequality and that aspirations play a lesser, yet still important, role.

Goldthorpe and Associates

John Goldthorpe (b. 1935) changed British sociology in the 1970s when he and his colleagues embarked on an
extensive study of social mobility in the UK. Conventional research in this vein focuses on intergenerational
mobility between the social class positions. Social class positions are determined by characteristics of their
occupations (or their fathers’ occupation). Goldthorpe and his colleagues are best known for their creation of
this way of measuring and understanding social class, an idea that is more engrained in British culture—but is
no less important in determining the life chances of individuals in Canada.

More recently, Goldthorpe (1996) and colleagues (Breen and Goldthorpe 1997) have been examining the role of
social class and educational attainment in an approach that is inspired by Boudon’s. Specifically, Goldthorpe is
interested in why individuals tend to stay in the same social class, despite popular belief that upward mobility is
possible to anyone who desires it. Breen and Goldthorpe (1997) proposed a formal rational action theory of
educational differentials that states that the differences we observe in educational attainment by social class is
due to rational decisions made by individuals. Breen and Goldthorpe acknowledge that the secondary effects of
social class do play an important role in explaining educational differentials by class, but strongly reject that this
is due to influences of a “(sub)cultural kind . . . operating through class differences in values, norms or beliefs
regarding education or through more obscure ‘subintentional’ pro-cesses” (p. 278). Rather, they argue, these
differences come about through individuals rationally weighing the costs and benefits associated with pursuing
additional education. People engage in a process of considering how likely they are to succeed at additional
schooling, the associated tuition fees, the anticipated payoffs and time investments, and weigh these against
potential alternatives. And all these factors themselves vary according to a person’s social class position. For
example, someone from a working class background may decide it is simply not worth it to invest all the time
and effort into a university degree when they will be saddled with the responsibility of repaying a huge student
debt when they are done. Recent Canadian research by Caro, McDonald, and Willms (2009) has considered this
theoretical position when examining the academic achievement of children in Canada. The authors found a gap
between academic achievement and social class that increasingly widened as children got older.

Bronfenbrenner and Ecological Systems Theory

Urie Bronfenbrenner (1917–2005) was the founder of ecological systems theory. As an educational
psychologist, Bronfenbrenner made numerous contributions to American education policy during his life. Most
significantly, he was co-founder of the Head Start program in the United States. Head Start began in 1965 as a
set of educational, nutritional, health, and parental involvement intervention programs aimed at low-income
children in the United States.3 These programs stem from Bronfenbrenner’s theory about the nature of child
development and how children are profoundly affected by various aspects of their environment. His ecological
systems theory asserts that child outcomes are the results of the many reciprocal effects between the child and
his or her environment. For example, how children are treated by parents and by their peers has a strong
influence on their development. Children who are mistreated by their parents and bullied by their peers will
have less favourable developmental outcomes than those who are raised in a positive and nurturing environment
and get along well with other children.

The environment in which the child is raised has profound impacts on their outcomes as human beings in
society. This is not limited, however, to just interactions with parents, peers, teachers, and family members.
Bronfenbrenner theorized that a child’s environment had five distinct elements which interacted together
and all  had the potential to impact on a child’s development:
the microsystem, the mesosystem, the exosystem, the macrosystem, and the chronosystem. The micro, macro,
and mesosystems relate very closely to the way microlevel, mesolevel, and macrolevel were defined earlier in
this chapter. Microsystems refer to the immediate setting in which the individual lives and his or her individual
experiences with family members, caregivers, friends, teachers, and others. The biological makeup of the child
(including temperament) is also included in the microsystem. The mesosystem refers to how various
microsystems connect to one another; so for example, mesosystems are concerned with how children’s
interactions with their parents may carry over into how they interact with their teachers. The exosystem level
contains people and places with which the child may not be directly involved yet still be impacted by. A child
may not have any direct interaction with a parent’s workplace, but the outcomes of the interactions that occur
there will have an impact on him or her. Parental job stress or job loss will definitely impact the child in terms
of the parent’s disposition in the home (in the case of job stress) or the economic resources he or she can
provide (in the case of job loss). Macrosystems concern the larger environment in which children live—urban
or rural, developed or underdeveloped, democratic or non-democratic, multicultural or not, for example. The
final system, the chronosystem, relates to the socio-historical changes and major events that influence the
world. For example, the chronosystem is vastly different for people during a time of war than during a time of
peace. The way that particular ethnicities are regarded during specific historical times is also a chronosystem
feature. For example, the way that Aboriginals in Canada have been treated historically in Canada is part of the
larger chronosystem of how they experience social life. How Muslims are regarded in post–September 11 North
America is also part of the chronosystem.

As you can see, elements of all these systems work together to shape the development of children, and many of
them are beyond the control of the parent. This theory recognizes that while parents have an important role in
shaping the lives of their children, there are bigger, external forces over which they have no control, but which
similarly impact on their child’s development. Figure 2.5 illustrates how these systems all relate to each other
and different characteristics that comprise each system.

 
Figure 2.5 Bronfenbrenner’s Ecological Model
Source: Adapted from Urie Bronfenbrenner, The Ecology of Human Development: Experiments by Nature and Design (Cambridge, MA: Harvard UP, 1979).
The Healthy Families Project in Canada is an example of a policy that is based upon theoretical assertions
made by ecological systems theory. The Healthy Families Project was an intervention that involved extensive
home visitation to families who had children deemed to be at very high risk for future criminal behaviour. 4 The
project was carried out in five test sites across the country between 2001 and 2004: three in Edmonton, one in
Whitehorse, and one in Charlottetown. The goal of such interventions from an ecological systems perspective is
to improve the environmental contexts of children, where possible, mostly targeted at improving parenting
techniques. In terms of the effectiveness of the program, results indicated noticeable benefits of the intervention.
In Prince Edward Island, for example, an increase in parents’ knowledge of child development and their child’s
temperament were noted, although the intervention was not successful at improving family function overall
(Elnitsky et al. 2003). They also found that the intervention was associated with a sharp drop in child welfare
involvement, and was more effective overall with younger first-time parents.

Feminist Approaches

Feminist theory within the sociology of education is concerned with how gender produces differences in
education, whether it concerns access to education, treatment in the classroom, achievement, or learning
processes. Feminist theory and feminism in general has undergone tremendous shifts since its beginning in the
late nineteenth century compared to how it is popularly understood in academic research today. There are three
general “waves” that are associated with feminism (Gaskell 2009). First wave feminism is associated with the
women’s rights and suffrage movements of the late nineteenth and early twentieth century. The concern of
feminists of this generation was to achieve equal rights to men.

Second wave feminism, which occurred in the 1960s and extended into the early 1990s, focused on women’s
equality, financial independence, women’s access to work, and sexual harassment. An important theoretical
orientation that developed during this time period was standpoint theory, which is associated with the work of
prominent Canadian sociologist Dorothy Smith. Among her contributions to sociology, Smith is known
for feminist standpoint theory, which calls for a sociology from the standpoint of women. Standpoint theory
focuses on the settings, social relations, and activities of women that are their own lived realities. Unlike other
feminist approaches that emphasize how sex roles shape the domination of women, standpoint theory focuses
on how knowledge plays a central role in social domination of women and how a dearth of women’s voices in
the construction of this knowledge contributes to oppression. In Mothering for Schooling, Griffith and Smith
(2005) used a similar approach to show how mothers’ work in getting children ready for school, volunteering at
schools, and helping with homework is necessary for the school system to function, but it also serves to hinder
women in working for income. The authors show how this gendered labour is closely tied to the success or
failure of children at school and how the school system depends on this invisible and uncompensated labour.

Having emerged in the early 1990s, third wave feminism is what is most commonly (but not exclusively)
associated with feminist approaches in research today. Also known as critical feminism, third wave feminism is
largely a response to the White middle-class focus of second wave feminism. Not only concerned with gender,
third wave feminist scholarship also focuses on the intersection of race and class in producing inequality.
Box 2.7 – Examples of How Feminist Researchers Approach the Sociology of Education

Zine (2008) uses a feminist approach to study identity among Muslim girls at an Islamic school in Toronto.
She notes how these girls construct a gendered and religious identity “within and against the dominant
patriarchal discourses promoted in Islamic schools” (p. 35). Zine examines how the girls’ identities have been
shaped by resisting the dominant Islamophobic discourses prevalent in mainstream society as well as the
patriarchal discourses in parts of the Muslim community. The author highlights how these girls have multiple
discourses of oppression that they resist when forming their identities.

Currie, Kelly, and Pomerantz (2007) studied teenage girls at a high school in Vancouver to illustrate how a
discourse of “meanness” was used to maintain covert forms of power. Teenage girls reported how popularity
was maintained through the use of relational aggression, which refers to subtle forms of aggression that are
couched in “mean” gossip creation, “backstabbing,” being given the “silent treatment,” and being ridiculed
and called names. The authors found that the girls described myriad unspoken rules about what constituted
the right type of femininity, which involved interactions with boys and manners of dress. The authors stressed
that this type of aggression is usually absent from discussion of girls’ aggression because it embedded in
girls’ identities and is often invisible to teachers.

Often dubbed postmodern feminism, the critical feminist scholarship of third wave feminism frequently
scrutinizes the meaning surrounding gender and how power relations play themselves out in subtle ways. The
work included under critical feminist or postmodern studies in the sociology of education is incredibly varied.
There is no single theory or theorist that can be associated with this perspective. Other feminist scholars
(Dillabough and Acker 2008; McNay 2000) have adapted the work of major theorists, such as Bourdieu, so that
they are more overtly focused on issues of gender. Many self-identified postmodern feminists draw on the work
of Michel Foucault, a theorist associated with discourse analysis (and poststructuralism). Discourse refers to the
way that a certain topic is talked about—the words, images, and emotions that are used when talking about
something. Postmodern feminists who use a Foucauldian approach would be interested in examining how
language is used to maintain gendered power relationships. Many critical feminist scholars draw upon the work
of several theorists to fine-tune their particular theoretical orientation. Box 2.7 provides some examples of some
recent Canadian critical feminist scholarship in the sociology of education.

Critical Race Theory

As suggested by the name, critical race theories put race at the centre of analysis, particularly when analyzing
educational disadvantage. Critical race theory (CRT) has its roots in legal scholarship from the United States.
Examination of the racialized nature of the law has been extended to examine how race is embedded in various
aspects of social life, including education (Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995; Tate 1997). Critical race theorists
assert that inequalities experienced in education cannot be explained solely by theories of class or gender—that
it is also race and the experience of being racialized that contributes to stratification of many aspects of social
life, including education. In general, critical race theorists do not assert that race is the only thing that matters,
but that race intersects with many other important factors that determine life chances, like class and gender.
Like their predecessors studying law, critical race theorists examining education emerged from studying African
Americans and school achievement. Acknowledging that gender and race do account for many differences
observed in educational attainment, it still remained a fact that middle class African-Americans had
significantly lower academic achievement than White Americans (Ladson-Billings and Tate 1995).

Discourses and Cultural Hegemony

Critical race theory is not simply about overt racism. Scholars and educators—and most people in general—like
to view themselves as nonracist. Critical race theorists examine the often very subtle ways that racism plays
itself out in various social structures. In fact, they point to how racism has become “normal” in society (Ladson-
Billings 1998). Their mandate is not simply to highlight race as a topic of study, but also to point to how
traditional methods, texts, and paradigms, combined with race and class, contribute to discourses which impact
upon communities of colour (Solorzano, Ceja, and Yosso 2000). There are dominant discourses in Canadian
society which, critical race theorists argue, favour White culture. A very simple example is to look at how the
topic of “family” is discussed in classrooms. A curriculum that is based upon North American “White” culture
may assume that “family” means two parents (a male and a female) and their children. When teachers are
discussing “the family,” this may be what they are assuming everyone understands and experiences in their
home life. If, however, a child comes from a different background where “family” constitutes an extended
family or even an entire community, he or she would be subject to a dominant discourse that does not reflect his
or her lived reality. See Box 2.8 for an additional example of how discursive practices influence curriculum.
Box 2.8 – Canada the Redeemer: Discourse and the Understanding of Canadian History

Schick and St. Denis (2005) describe how curriculum is a major discourse through which White privilege is
maintained. Drawing on the term “Canada the Redeemer,” coined by Roman and Stanley in 1997, they argue
that curriculum has normalized Whiteness by creating a national mythology around the history of Canada. In
particular, the discourse that is perpetuated is one that characterizes Canada as being “fair.”  The intentionally
ironic phrase “Canada the Redeemer” refers to the discourse that surrounds Canadian culture as being
perhaps a “little bit racist” but “nowhere as bad as the United States,” and that Canada “saves” people from
racism and provides a safe haven. The mainstream discourse of Canadian culture tends to emphasize that
Canada is a peaceful and multicultural society and that early pioneers’ hardships and toil tamed the land into
what we enjoy today. Shick and St. Denis argue that this discourse favours a particular “White” perspective
and reveals only a very specific view of how Canada originated—one that is highly debatable, particularly if
the perspective of Canada’s Aboriginal peoples are taken into account.

Schick and St. Denis argue that Whiteness as the dominant cultural reference is embedded in everyday
taken-for-granted “knowledge”—so much so that it in effect becomes invisible and permeates all aspects of
curriculum. White students may believe that hard work and meritocracy allowed their ancestors to earn their
place in society, but this fails to acknowledge that racist policies limiting Aboriginal education actually
enabled the success of White students. Canadian history curriculum has traditionally taught that Canada was
particularly generous to White European settlers, “giving away” land to these newcomers. Such a historical
 discourse fails to recognize that this free land was originally taken by violent and coercive means from the
original inhabitants. The authors, speaking about the discourse surrounding Canada’s national identity, state
that “one point of pride about how Canada is different from the United States depends on the construction of
an egalitarian, not racist, national self-image. There is a great deal at stake in keeping this mythology intact”
(p. 308). The authors suggest that it is necessary that anti-racist pedagogies are promoted within the
classroom. These ways of teaching students specifically address the taken-for-granted, day-to-day practices
of how White identities are produced and maintained. Antiracist pedagogies specifically confront the notion
of “White culture” being normative and “natural” and reconceptualize these assumptions as being a major
force in the perpetuation of subtle forms of racism.

The idea of cultural power also relates back to Italian sociologist Antonio Gramsci, who popularized the
term hegemony (Gramsci, Hoare, and Smith 1971). While Gramsci himself was associated with Marxism,
aspects of his writings on power relationships have been useful for critical race theorists and feminist scholars
alike. Cultural hegemony refers to popular beliefs and values in a culture that reflect the ideology of powerful
members of society. In turn, these values are used to legitimate existing social structures and relationships. It is
a form of power used by one group over another, largely by consensus. The widely accepted definition of the
family described above would fit into this category of cultural hegemony in Canada. Cultural hegemony also
exists, to a much larger extent, in the dominance of “Whiteness” and White values in much of Canadian society.
Pidgeon (2008) has written about how the typical Canadian definition of “success” in post-secondary education
refers to finishing a program and making financial gains as a result. Success, however, for Aboriginal students
means something much more complex. According to Pidgeon, “Success in university for many Aboriginal
nations means more than matriculating through prescribed curriculum to graduation. The benefits of university-
trained Indigenous peoples extend beyond financial outcomes. Higher education is valued for capacity building
within Aboriginal nations toward their goals of self-government and self-determination. Higher education is
also connected to empowerment of self and community, decolonization and self-determination” (2008:340).
The author argues that counter-hegemonic discourses around the notion of success must be entertained by
university officials to improve Aboriginal student retention.

Racialization

Racialization is the process by which various groups are differentially organized in the social order (Dei 2009).
These groups exist within hierarchies of power that value the identity and characteristics of one group over all
others. According to CRT, “Whiteness” and the culture surrounding Whites is prioritized in our culture, and
various social institutions, including those responsible for education, embrace those values (whether they
acknowledge it or not) which place racialized individuals at an inherent disadvantage. White privilege is
embedded in a discursive practice that legitimizes hierarchies that are based on race (Schick and St. Denis
2005). An important task for teachers, students, administrators, and researchers is to question how the privilege
associated with Whiteness keeps existing power positions in place. See Box 2.9 for additional discussion of
Whiteness.

If White culture is understood as the “norm,” and the practices and beliefs from this culture are embedded in the
curriculum of our places of education, students from non-White backgrounds will be at a disadvantage in
variety of ways. First, their own cultural knowledge and practices are, by default, considered illegitimate at
worst, or “weird” or “exotic” at best. Second, they are made to adapt to White culture in order to succeed. In the
words of Ladson-Billings (1998:18), they are made to follow a curriculum based upon a “White supremacist
master script.” Third, teaching strategies developed from the dominant culture may fail with racialized students,
thus labelling such students as “high risk.”
Box 2.9 – What Is Meant by “Whiteness”?

Critical race theorists speak a lot about “Whiteness.” But what is Whiteness? Is it appearance? is it a race? or
a culture? How should we understand Whiteness? Within CRT, Whiteness refers to people who are
phenotypically (i.e., appear as) Caucasian and have experienced the socialization of living in a culture where
they are the dominant group. Whiteness implies the general shared value and cultural experiences of
Caucasians in Canada as the dominant group. Their values and ways of thinking are the default for “normal”
in Canadian society and for all societies where colonialism has resulted in racial inequality. In a qualitative
study of White student teachers, Solomon, Portelli, Daniel, and Campbell (2005) illustrate how they resisted
and downplayed their own racial identities. They tended to argue that their successes in life were due to merit
and hard work alone and that White privilege did not exist in Canadian society. Many voiced hostility at the
suggestion that their achievements were the outcome of anything but their own diligence. It is not surprising
 that many student teachers reacted to the suggestion that they possessed “White privilege” (and that this
permeated into areas of their lives and clouded their judgment) with some degree of hostility. Indeed, anti-
racist educators have identified this as an uncomfortable yet necessary stage of anti-racist pedagogy
(McIntyre 1997; Schick and St. Denis 2005; Solomon et al. 2005).

Millington, Vertinsky, Boyle, and Wilson (2008) used a critical race approach in their examination of Chinese-
Canadian masculinities and physical education (PE) curriculum in Vancouver, British Columbia. The authors
examined how, historically, Chinese boys are stereotyped as “unmanly” by White boys, as they are
characterized as studious and passive. The authors note how this specific definition of masculinity prevailed in a
Vancouver high school. This White, middle-class definition of masculinity was realized through the rewarding
of physically aggressive performances in PE class by these males and by their physical and verbal intimidation
of the Chinese-Canadian males. The researchers noted how the types of games played in the PE curriculum—
like football and dodgeball—rewarded this kind of behaviour, while marginalizing the Chinese-Canadian boys.
Furthermore, the teachers did not see these unfolding dynamics as acts of racism, although they had a key role
in facilitating such hegemonic masculinities.

In contrast, Levine-Rasky (2008) uses CRT in an analysis of a neighbourhood school referred to as Pinecrest,
within a large Canadian city. From the 1960s to the late 1980s, the school that served a particular area was
comprised of a relatively homogenous student body which reflected the make-up of the neighbourhood—Jewish
from a high socioeconomic background. Starting in the 1990s, a neighbouring community that was made up
largely of new immigrants was beginning to grow. As a result, children from the neighbouring community
started attending Pinecrest, eventually resulting in a stark shift in the demographic of the school. Levine-Rasky
spoke to parents in the neighbourhood, many of whom themselves attended Pinecrest as children, to see if they
sent their own children there. Nearly half of their own children who were entitled to attend Pinecrest (due to the
catchment area) did not. The author explored the reasons these parents had for sending their children elsewhere
and found that many of these parents were engaged in maintaining their “Whiteness” and “middle-classness.”
Rather than being overtly racist or ethnocentric, the parents often indicated their reservations stemmed from
their belief that immigrant children may somehow disrupt the educational process by requiring disproportionate
attention or having parents who did not understand the value of education.

An important extension of critical race theory is anti-racist pedagogy, which refers to classroom techniques and
curricular approaches that address racialization. This will be covered in Chapter 5.

Chapter Summary

In this chapter, several theoretical perspectives have been described, all of which have application to the study
of the sociology of education. The chapter began by introducing theoretical terminology that is embedded
within many theoretical perspectives: macro-social theory, microsocial theory, mesosocial theory, middle range
theory, agency/structure, and ontology and epistemology. The first theoretical perspective that was discussed
was structural functionalism, which is associated with the work of Émile Durkheim, and later, Talcott Parsons.
The critical perspective of Karl Marx, which emphasizes the idea of social class and conflict between classes,
and those who were influenced by Marxist theory (neo-Marxists) were then discussed, as was the linkage
between Marxism and critical pedagogy. The next classical theorist considered was Max Weber, as well as
the neo-Weberians, who emphasized the idea of credentialism within the sociology of education.

Meyer’s institutional theory was next introduced, which juxtaposes the democratic entitlement to education with
the “loose coupling” that such education actually serves in the job market. The microsocial approaches of
symbolic interaction and phenomenology were then briefly addressed. Next, theories focused on the
reproduction of culture were considered. Social capital was also introduced, and it was shown that social capital
can be understood as macro-, meso-, and microtheoretical theoretical concept. Theorists that regard education as
a major component of social mobility were then discussed, with emphasis placed on the notion of “primary” and
“secondary” effects.

Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory understood the process of child development (and hence the role of
education) as being influenced from several spheres (i.e., systems) that interacted with each other to contribute
to children’s life chances. The chapter ended with newer contributions from feminist and critical race theorists,
who prioritize gender and race in their understanding of educational processes and practices in Canada.

Some approaches, like functionalism and Marxism/neo-Marxism, described the overarching nature of society,
while others like symbolic interaction and phenomenology emphasized that subjective meaning was core to
understanding social processes. Other theories occupied a middle range, focusing only on trying to explain
distinct aspects of social life, like the social mobility approaches and their attention to the relationship between
social class and educational attainment. Each theoretical perspective has its own strengths and weaknesses and
the prominence of many fades as new theories develop.

When considering a particular topic area in the sociology of education, one should think about the particular
theoretical perspective(s) that would be appropriate to explore it. Some will be more fitting than others. An
interest in how students experience racism in the classroom, for example, is probably best addressed through the
use of critical race theory while structural functionalism probably will not be helpful here. Questions around
how society reproduces itself through subtle means can be approached from the perspective of the cultural and
social reproduction theories that have been presented—but institutional theory or symbolic interaction probably
will not be much help. A researcher must also consider his or her own beliefs about the nature of reality. What
is given priority, agency or structure? What bridges the two? In terms of ontology, is meaning all essentially
subjective, or is it that scientists have the task of uncovering objective facts? These are not at all easy issues to
resolve and have engaged philosophers and social theorists for centuries. But all these preconceptions influence
what social theories will make their way into sociology of education research.

https://ecampusontario.pressbooks.pub/robsonsoced