1. Investment in human capital
According to the Human Capital Theory, although it is clear that the person acquires knowledge and skills, it is not so much the fact that those skills and that knowledge are a form of capital, nor that a significant part of that capital is the product of an investment deliberate, that it has grown in Western societies faster than conventional (non-human) capital and that its growth may be the most distinctive feature of the economic system. For this view, it has been repeated many times that the increase in national GDP has been large compared to that of traditional production factors (land, hours of human labor, physical capital, etc.), and probably the investment in capital Human provide us with the main explanation for this difference.
One aspect that supports this theory is that income differentials between people closely correspond to their respective differentials in education, that is, it can be suggested that one is a consequence of the other.
How can the magnitude of investment in human capital be calculated? These theorists wonder. For them, the secret is to quantify the most important activities that improve human capacity and productivity, which can be grouped into five main categories:
- Health equipment and services, including all expenses that affect the life expectancy, strength, endurance, vigor and vitality of a people On-the-job training, including old-style apprenticeships organized by companies Formal education organized at the elementary, secondary and higher levels Adult study programs that are not organized by companies The migration of individuals and families to adjust to changing job opportunities.
From this perspective, truly the most distinctive feature of our economic system is growth in human capital. Without it, there would be only poverty and hard manual labor, except for those with property income.
2. The theory of the correspondence between the world of school and the world of work
Bowles and Gintis argue that there is a correspondence between the organization of life at school and the way of organizing the world of work, particularly with regard to the relations of domination and subordination that govern the capitalist world. The effectiveness of that relationship is expressed in the production of a fragmented and submissive workforce. And this not only through the knowledge that is acquired in school, but through all school experiences.
The education system has a life of its own, but work experience and the nature of the class structure are the basis on which educational values are formed, social justice is valued, and the domain of the possible is delineated in people's consciences.
It is quite clear that the conscience of workers (beliefs, values, self-concept, types of solidarity, forms of behavior and personal development) is fundamental for the perpetuation, validation and proper functioning of economic institutions. The reproduction of the social relations of bourgeois production depends on the reproduction of consciousness.
The initiation of young people into the economic system is further facilitated by a number of institutions, including the family and the educational system, which are closely related to the formation of personality and consciousness. In particular, school instruction encourages and rewards the development of certain skills and the manifestation of certain needs, while frustrating and punishing others. The educational system then, shapes self-concepts, aspirations and social class identifications of individuals, and the requirements of the social division of labor.
- First, school instruction produces many of the cognitive and technical skills required for adequate job performance; second, it helps to legitimize economic inequality: the objective and meritocratic orientation of education reduces discontent with the hierarchical division of labor third, the school produces, rewards and labels the relevant personal characteristics for the distribution of positions in the hierarchy Fourth, the educational system, through the pattern of differences in Encouraging status reinforces the stratified consciousness on which the fragmentation of the subordinate economic classes is based.
Specifically, for these authors the social relations of education are a replica of the hierarchical division of labor and its fragmentation is reflected in the institutionalized competition among students through a constant evaluation and ostensibly meritocratic classification, in the same way as the division of work would have a precedent in the levels of education, specializations, differentiated centers, etc. The consequence of all this is that the educational system has become a fundamental element in reproducing the social division of labor and the class structure.
Alienated work is reflected in the student's lack of control over his education, his alienation over the content of his study plans, and the motivation of school work through a grading system and other external rewards, in rather than through the integration of students either in the process (learning) or in the outcome (knowledge) of the educational production process.
3. The theory of Schooling Networks
According to Baudelot andEstat, the educational system, and specifically the primary school, divides individuals into two differentiated school networks, which lead to very different educational and social destinations: the primary-professional network (PP) and the upper secondary network (SS). For these authors, the objective of both is the inculcation of bourgeois ideology.
This inculcation of bourgeois ideology is carried out systematically, and not always explicitly, through the whole of school practices; and this is how it is possible to subject individuals to it. This bourgeois ideology fights the proletarian ideology, denying it a place in the school.
The division into two networks ensures:
- On the one hand, a material distribution, a distribution of individuals at the two poles of society; on the other hand, a political and ideological function of inculcation of bourgeois ideology.
With regard to the distribution of individuals in the two poles of society, for this theory culture is only reached at the end of the upper final cycle, all those who remain in the intermediate steps must inevitably be located in other schooling networks.
The PP network leads to a secondary sector of the labor market, has less prestige and is fundamentally for the popular sectors, while the SS network, which is more complete since it covers all levels in which regulated education is framed, has greater prestige and an elitist character and leads to leadership positions in bourgeois society.
Regarding the political and ideological role of inculcation of bourgeois ideology, one can observe the sublime and nuanced forms inculcated by the SS network, the cult of art, of pure science, of philosophical depth, of the subtlety of psychological analyzes, of the complexity of rhetorical skill, which contrast with the knowledge instilled in the PP network, although both types of training are necessary so that, at all levels of the social division of labor, each one acts according to the needs of bourgeois labor, law and politics.
For these authors, school practices and their ritual are an essential aspect of the ideological inculcation process; Duties, discipline, punishments and rewards, after their apparent educational function, ensure the essential function of carrying out bourgeois ideology in the school.
The school also contributes to the reproduction of the quality of the workforce through the transmission of knowledge and skills, although due to the characteristics of school practices, these are far from productive practices. This is one of the main effects of the division of labor into manual and intellectual, or theory and practice, knowledge and technique.
Bibliography
1. Bibliography prepared by the Sociology of Education chair, Faculty of Philosophy and Letters, UNCuyo, Mendoza.
