User:Creaturesofthewind
| File:Learning to Labor Morningside.tif The 1981 Morningside edition | |
| Author | Paul Willis |
|---|---|
| Country | United Kingdom |
| Language | English |
| Genre | Sociology |
| Published | 1977 |
| Publisher | Saxon House (UK), Columbia University Press (US) |
| ISBN | 0-231-05357-6 |
Learning to Labour[edit]
Learning to Labour: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs is a 1977 book on education, written by the British social scientist and cultural theorist Paul Willis. A 1981 edition, titled the "Morningside Edition," was published in the United States by Columbia University Press shortly after its reception.[1]
Willis's first major book, Learning to Labour relates the findings of an ethnographic study of working-class boys at a secondary school in England, as well as explains the role of youths' culture and socialization as a medium by which schools and education policies route working-class students into working-class jobs. Stanley Aronowitz, in the preface to the Morningside edition, hailed the book as a landmark work of ethnography and Marxist social reproduction theories about education, advancing previous work in education studies by Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis's Schooling in Capitalist America, as well as by Michael Apple and John Dewey.[2]
NOTES:
- Have a sentence about how the book is important as a landmark work w.r.t. cultural studies. Find citations.
Background[edit]
Learning to Labour developed from Paul Willis's ethnographic study of twelve working-class British male students, attending their second-to-last year of schooling at a "Hammertown Boys," a modern, boys-only school in a town in the British Midlands, called "Hammertown." Beginning in 1972, Willis followed and interviewed these boys for about six months, observing their social behavior with each other and their school. He also interviewed them in later points, until 1975. The makeup of the school in question, as well as Hammertown itself, is largely working-class, with some immigrants from South Asia and the West Indies.[3] At the time of the study, the local school system was expanding its infrastructure and exploring new pedagogical methods, thanks to the implementation of the Raising of School Leaving Age policies in September 1972, in line with education reforms that sought to keep youth in schools for a greater span of their childhoods, as well as give them structural opportunities for gainful employment and socioeconomic mobility.[4]
Willis's research was made possible by funding through the Social Science Research Council, and Willis acknowledged the advice and support members of the Centre for Contemporary Cultural Studies at the University of Birmingham, including cultural theorist Stuart Hall, in writing the book.[5]
Summary[edit]
As both an ethnographic and theoretical text on education, Learning to Labour is divided into two key sections. In Part One, Willis describes and analyzes the nonconformist counter-school culture produced by the White, working-class boys (called "lads") whom he observes. In this section, he also uses thick description and ethnographic analysis to develop terms for the students' identities, behavior, and distorted class consciousness, meaning that he recognizes the legitimacy and reality of the students' own interpretive accounts of schooling. In Part Two, Willis analyzes his own ethnography to produce a theoretical account of how youths' own counter-school culture, which resists authority and prizes authentic working-class experience, plays a vital role in leading working-class students into subordinate, low-wage labor positions in adult life, fulfilling what he calls their "self-damnation."[6] Working-class youths' recognition of, and reaction against, the dominating, disciplinary mechanisms of school help seal their future outcomes as workers, in turn enabling the social reproduction of class positions.
Part One: Ethnography[edit]
Willis uses the qualitative research methods of participant observation and group interviews to study an informal but cohesive group of twelve lads at Hammertown Boys. He distinguishes between two distinct, informal groups of the working-class students at Hammertown Boys: lads and 'ear'oles. However, this distinction is made by the students who identify as lads. Whereas the lads are those nonconformist students who defy authority, 'ear'oles are those conformist students who invest themselves in formal learning and academic achievement, and therefore in the authority of teachers and the school system.[7] The term "'ear'ole" recalls the earhole or earlobe, signifying conformist students' passive reception of learning, in contrast to lads' rowdy, active behavior in school. The lads perceive themselves as superior -- more manly, more authentic, and more independent -- to the 'ear'oles.[8]
The lads informally socialize and organize themselves against the 'ear'oles and the school as an institution, producing a culture of nonconformity, rebellion, and opposition to their school's authority figures and strictures. For example, it is not only important that the lads smoke and have sex with girls, but are seen to smoke and recognized to have had sexual liaisons. Behaviors that define the forms of this culture, such as playing pranks on teachers, harassing conformist students, and refusing to inform teachers of each others' behavior, also build a sense of solidarity and identity among their.[9] The lads' culture is also patriarchal and racist, as girls and non-Whites are excluded from their informal group; it also strongly identifies with the actual, working-class environment from which it originates.[10] In terms of working-class identity, their culture has much in common with the culture of working-class shopfloors -- specifically, the active search for producing moments of excitement, disorder, and enjoyment in what is an otherwise boring, routine, and meaningless span of time of work for adult workers, and school discipline for students.[11]
Over the course of their time at Hammertown Boys, the lads were recognized by school authorities as a distinct "anti-school group," but by their fifth year in secondary school, when they were legally able to leave school, only a minority of them did.[12] In their fifth year, as the studied group of lads enter career-preparation lessons in school, they reject the legitimacy of formal credentials and qualifications, as they come to prize manual labor as superior to and more authentic than mental labor, inverting the lessons' insinuation of mental labor being more desirable than manual labor, by dint of its higher socioeconomic status.[13] By the end of the ethnography, the lads are easily able to enter working-class jobs, including plumbing, bricklaying, and trainee machine work; however, half of them leave their job for another after one year of work and a are were unable to find work at all. Willis ends the ethnographic study in fall 1976, with the lads routed into working-class labor with little hope of rising into the middle class, even as they subjectively experience manual labor and income as empowering, and even exhilarating.[14] Willis writes:
There is also a sense in which, despite the ravages -- fairly well contained at this point anyway -- manual work stands for something and is a way of contributing to and substantiating a certain view of life which criticises, scorns and devalues others as well as putting the self, as they feel it, in some elusive way ahead of the game. These feelings arise precisely from a sense of their own labour power which has been learnt and truly appropriated as insight and self-advance within the depths of the counter-school culture as it develops specific class forms in the institutional context. It is difficult to think how attitudes of such strength and informal and personal validity could have been formed in any other way. It is they, not formal schooling, which carry 'the lads' over into a certain application to the productive process. In a sense, therefore, there is an element of self-domination in the acceptance of subordinate roles in western capitalism. However, this damnation is experienced, paradoxically, as a form of true learning, appropriation and as a kind of resistance.[15]
Part Two: Analysis[edit]
- Teaching paradigm: The teaching paradigm is the principal set of demands and incentives used by the school system. Perthis paradigm, students consent to behave obediently and in deference to their teacher, in exchange for promised credentials that will help them move upward socioeconomically.[16] This paradigm, which helps the teacher with authority, implies the desirability of obedience, deference, and conformity for working-class students, and recalls the banking paradigm in Paulo Freire's Pedagogy of the Oppressed.[17] However, Willis notes the importance of teachers' winning from their students consent to the teaching paradigm; their exchange-based authority does not permit them to directly impose it on students.[18]
- Differentiation, integration, and penetration: Willis describes differentiation as the process by which working-class students reinterpret, invert, criticize, and reject the teaching paradigm as failing to meet their objective interests as members of the working class. Aspects of differentiation constitute, in part, the lads' counter-school culture. Conversely, integration is the opposite of differentiation, being the process by which agents of the school system, such as teachers, attempt to legitimize the role of schooling in improving students' lives. The tug-of-war between differentiation and integration is, in Willis's observation, continually manifested through day-to-day contests between teachers attempting to maintain their authority and lads attempting to subvert it.[19] These contests occasionally lead to penetration, which denotes the lads' insights, generated by their counter-school culture, into their own class condition; specifically, it is through penetrations that working-class youth recognize the illusions of the teaching paradigm, and more generally of liberal democracy and capitalism's promises of advancement through education.
NOTES
- Add more here: Explain succinctly Willis's analysis of culture and social reproduction
Reception[edit]
NOTES
- This will be a trickier part as I’d have to look for other sources, but there are a few already: Learning to Labor in New Times, new editions of Learning to Labor, and what Birmingham School theorists including McRobbie, Stuart Hall, and Willis himself have written.
- Fanfare and celebration: Learning to Labor was apparently well received. So then, what did it change? What already existing ideas were overturned, revised, or improved?
- Criticisms leveled against Learning to Labor. How did Willis respond? How did this complicate Willis’s theories and produce new avenues of research?
- Talk about influence on new ethnographies about socioeconomic inequality. Point to Annette Laureau’s Unequal Childhoods and Jay McLeod’s Ain’t No Makin’ It.
- Talk about influence on masculinity with reference to gender and queer studies.
References[edit]
- ^ Willis, Paul (1981). Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. New York, NY: Columbia University Press. pp. ix. ISBN 0-231-05357-6.
- ^ Ibid. pp. x-xii.
- ^ Ibid. pp 4-5, 47-49.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 2.
- ^ Ibid. pp. viii.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 3.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 13.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 13-17.
- ^ Ibid. 12-42.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 43-49, 52-59.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 53-59.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 76.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 89-103.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 106-107.
- ^ Ibid. p. 113.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 62-69.
- ^ Freire, Paulo (2000). Pedagogy of the Oppressed. New York, NY: Continuum International Publishing Group. pp. 72–75. ISBN 0-8264-1276-9.
- ^ Learning to Labor: How Working Class Kids Get Working Class Jobs. pp. 83.
- ^ Ibid. pp. 63-65.
| This user is a student editor in Wikipedia:Wiki_Ed/Stanford_University/Critical_Theory_and_Pedagogies_(Fall). Student assignments should always be carried out using a course page set up by the instructor. It is usually best to develop assignments in your sandbox. After evaluation, the additions may go on to become a Wikipedia article or be published in an existing article. |