Capital Accumulation, Class Confitct, and Educational Change

also brought tangible, if limitcd, bcnefits Lo the working people of thc

United States,
The expansión of schooling, Jikc the expansion of the wage-labor sys-
tem, has had consequences not only unanticipated by the capitalist and
professional elites, but unwantcd as wcll. The schools have bcen used to
smother discontent. By embracing potentially radical elcments in the soci-
ety, the school system has helped to extract the political sting f rom funda-
mentaJ social conflicts. Yet che basis for these conflicts continues in the
underlying coruradictions of the capiialist economy. Educational reformers
have partially succeeded in displacing these conflicts out of the workplace
and into the classroom. Thus, as we shaU see in our next chapter, the
contradictions of capitalism frequently surface as contradictions within che
educational systcm. And what Charles Silberman has labeled thc "crisis in
the classroom" has opened up a hose of educational alteroatives. To these,
we now turn.
 Part IV

GETTING THERE
 CHAPTER 10
•

Educational Alternatives
The social revolution . . . cannot draw its poetry from the
past, but only from the future.
l<ARL \1ARX
The Eiglueenth Brumaire
of Louis Napoleon ( 1852)

The 1960s and 1970s, like other periods oí social dislocation in U.S.
history, have spawned a host of proposals for restructuring the educational
system. In response to the struggles oí blacks, women, Chicanos, and other
oppressed groups for a more just share of the economic pie have come
proposals Ior racially integrated schooling, compcnsatory education, open
enrollment, voucher systems, and othcr reforrns aimed at crealing a more
equal educational system. ln response to job dissatisfaction, a growing
sense of powerlessness among even the relatively privileged, and the spread
of a do-your-own-tbing youth culture, reformers bave offered the open
classroom, unstructured learning environments, the open campus, pass-fail
options, and other cbanges directed toward a more liberating educational
experience. Sorne have proposed that we do away with schools altogether
and carry on the task of cducation in decentralized and voluntary skill
exchanges, reference services, and "learning webs." Sorne of these pro-
posals go little beyond social tinkering; others are quite radical. Most of
the proposals have existed in sorne forro Ior at Jeast half a century; a few
are genuinely new. Sorne have been proferred in the hopes oí preserving the
status quo; others embody distinctly revolutionary objectives. Many mod-
ern progressive educators have seen a more equal and liberating school
syslem as the major instrument for the construction of a just and humane
society.
The reader will not be surprised to find that we are more than a little
skeptical of these claims. The social prob]ems to which these reforms are
addressed have their roots not prirnarily in the school system itsclf, but
rather in the normal functioning of the economic system. Educational al-
ternatives which fail to address this basic íact join a club of venerable
lineage: the legión of school reforms which, at times against the better

245
 SCHOOL!NG IN CAPITALIST AME!RICA

intentions of its lending proponents, have served to deflect discontcnl,

depoliucize social distress, and thereby havc hclped to siabilize the prevail-
ing structurcs of privilcge.
Schools and educational reforms play a central role in the rcproduction
of the social ordcr. Yet this need not be the case. The character of reforrn
dcpends, not only on the content of the ref orm itself', but on thc pro-
gramatic context in which the reform is advocated and the process by
which it is won as well. Many of the above proposals could be weldcd into
a powerful and progressive program. Such a program would have as its
overriding objective the ultimare dismantling of the capitalist systcm and its
replacernent by a more progrcssive social ordcr. Yet its most immediate
objectives would certainly include many of those espoused by ioday's so-
cial reformers. The unifying thcme oí a program of revolutionary reforrns
is that short-run successes yield concrete gains for those participating in the

-- struggle and, at the same time, strengthen the movement for further
' change.1 In the context of a general strategy for social change, ,ve include
proposals for a more equal and less repressive education as revolutionary
reforms.
Revolutionary school reformers must recognize, and take advantage oí,
the critica! role of education in reproducing the economic order. It is
precisely this role of education which both ofTers the opportunity for using
schools to promote revolutionary change and, at the same time, presents
the danger of co-optation and assirnilation into a counterstrategy to sta-
bilize the social order. Nolhing in our analysis suggests that equal school-
ing or open education is impossible in the U.S. But we are firmly convinced
that, if these alternatives are to contribute to a better social order, they
must be part oí a more general revolutionary movement-a movement
which is not confined to schooling, but embraces all spheres of social life.
In this chapter, we will consider sorne of the proposed educational alterna-
tivcs. In each case, \VC ask: In what sense can these proposals meet their
ostensible objectives and promote a movernent for the thoroughgoing trans-
formation of the U.S. social and economic order?

Equal Education

... if the children ... are lo go every evening, the one to his
wealthy parcnts' soít-carpeted drawmg room, thc other to its
poor Iather's or widowed mother's comfortless cabin, will
Educational A lternatives

ihey retum [to school) the next day as friends and equals? He
knows little of human nature who thinks they will.
ROBERT Ü\VEN,
Tire Working Ma11'.s Advocate, 1830

Proposals for a more equal education may be grouped under tbree head-
ings. First are those-such as open enrollment in colleges-i-which would
reduce the inequality in tbe number of years of schooling attained by indi-
viduals. Second are the programs which seek to reduce the degree of in-
equality in educational resources-such as the attempt lo render school
finance independent of the local property-tax base and other programs for
resource transfers among school districts. Last are the custom-tailored pro-
grams for children with special needs, of which Project Headstart is, per-
haps, the best example.
Without exception the ostensible objective of these programs is to reduce
inequality of educational opportunity, that is, to render one's educational
chances independent of race, sex, and parental status. The programs are
aimed at reducing inequality in the amount of schooling attained by individ-
uals only insofar as this is essential to achieving greater equality of educa-
tional opportunity. The rationale behind these programs is Iairly simple.
Income, occupational attainment, or sorne other measure of econornic suc-
cess, it is argued, is related to educational attainments. Differences in
educational attainments cause diff erences in income. lf inequalities in edu-
cational attainments can be reduced, then inequalities in income will be
reduced. Similarly inequality of economic opportunity operates, in part,
through the effect of race, sex, or parental status upon educational attain-
ments which thus indirectly affect incomes. If the correlation between race,
sex, and parental status on the one hand and educatiooal attainments on
the other could be reduced ( even without reducing inequality in years of
schooling attained), the total correlation between these background char-
acteristics and income would be reduced.
This simple model has been the intellectual arena f or the major debates
over strategies toward achieving greater economic equality through more
equal schooling. Far from clarifying the main issues, this model has helped
to cloud the discussion with competing and equally erroneous interpreta-
tions of empírica! data. Evideoce presented in the late 1950s and the early
1960s by Becker, Schultz, and others, showing a strong statistical relation-
ship between education and income, appeared to bolster the case for using
school equalization to move toward social equality or equality of economic
opporrunity." More recent writers-Jencks in particular-have stressed
the fact that, while the more educated do receive, on the average, substan-

247
 SCHOOLING IN CAPJTALIST AMERlCA

tially more income than the less schooled, educational differences account
statistically Cor only a very small portien of overall income inequality."
Jencks concluded that even a completely equal school system (i.e., no
differences in years of schooling attained) would lea ve income eguality
substantially untouched.
A simple enough argument, but less than compelling. The case which
social scientists have made both for and against education as an instrument
toward greater equality of opportunity or greater economic equality is
based on a simple fallacy: the assumption that statistical relationships
between schooling and income can be used to predict the consequences of
social changes which would create situations drastically difíerent from the
social experiences reflected in our currently available data. Indeed, we
expect that significant changes toward a more equal educational system-
or toward one less class-, sex-, and race-biased-would be associated witb
equally significant changes in the statistical relationship between education
and the distribution of econornic rewards. Thus the simple models based on
the assumption that current relationships among tbe rnain variables will
remain unchangcd cven if the distribution of these variables changes in
heretofore unprecedented ways are simply ínappropriate. The convenient
assumption of holding other things constant is a misleading guide to the
analysis of any but the most trivial educational changes.
J The error in Jencks' method and the main shortcoming oí the entire
debat ... on the efficacy of equal education to achieve economic goals may be
traced to the theory of education whicb places it outside of society, an
instrument to be independently manipulated for the better or ill by enlight-
ened reformers, selfísh, elites or mindless bureaucrats. Against this naive
view, we have argued that schooling is very much a part of the production
and reproduction of the class structure. The evidence of the previous Iour
chapters suggests that the structure of schooling has changed over time to
accommodate the shifting confíicts associated with the transformation of
( the capitalist relations of production. The prirnary relationship between
"'\scbooling and inequality cannot be discovered in a model which assurnes
that schools cause inequality. Rather, unequal schooling perpetuates a
structure of economic inequality wbich originares outside the school system
in the social relationships of the capitalist economy.
Does this mean that a more equal school system has no role to play in
creating a more equal society? Not at ali.
-..... 1 The reduction of economic inequality is ultimately a political, not an
1economic question. The legitimation of economic inequaJity is critical to
the political defense of the fundamental institutions which regulate the U.S.
economy. An educational system purged of its social biases would hardly
Educational A lternatives

contribute to the legitirnation of inequality. Givcn the currcnt emphasis on

mcritocrauc process, an equal school system would substantially under-
mine the defcnscs of hicrarchical privileges. I ndeed, wc believe that the
movcment for racial equality and the wídespread dissatisíaction among
incrcasingly well-educated workers is, to a dcgrec, the resuJt of the increas-
ing equality of educational auainments, t But a more equal school systcm
will not creare a more equal society simply through equalizing the distribu-
tion of human rcsourccs. It will only create the political opportunity for
organizing a strong movement dedicatcd to achievmg greater economic
equality. Egalitarian school reform must be explicitly political: its aim must
be to undermine the capacity of thc system to perpetuate inequality. This
entails at Jeast three objectives, An egalitarian program of educational
reforms rnust rnakc it perfectly clcar that equality is not a qucstion of
subcultura] values, nor is it a biological issue, nor is it a narrowly economic
issue. Equality is a política! issue, and the only route to a more equal
society líes through política! struggle. Second, cgalitarian reforms in educa-
tion must seek to disable the myths which make inequality appear benefi-
cial, jusi, or unavoidable. Finally, a program of egalitarian reforrns in
education must seek to unify diverse groups and combat attempts to seg-
ment workers oí diflcrent social circumstance.
Lct us consider how these principies might apply in the case of a particu-
lar egalitarian rcform: open enrollment in higher education. This reform
could very well rneet the first objective-the politicization of inequality. If
youth of minority and blue-collar Iarnilies gained their share of higher
education credentials, the legitimacy of organizing production and social
life hierarchically along class and race lines would be drastically under-
mined. The continued exploitation of labor and social oppression of mi-
norities would incrcasingly come to be seen as rootcd in the política! power
of dominant elites rather than in any cultural, biological, or skill deficien-
cics of workers. But open enrollment does not necessarily gencrate a more
equal distribution of educational crcdentials. Along with Creer adrnissions
policies have come a stronger interna! tracking system within higher educa-
tion and thc prolifcration of sub-8.A. degrees. These symbolize the new
educational stratifícation."
Thc rclationship bctwecn open enrollment and thc second objcctive-
undermining antiegalitarian myths-is similarly ambiguous. Certainly,
open enrollment can, and has, in important cases, laid to rest the notion
that only a select Iew can bcnefit (rom higher education." The presence of
increasing numbcrs of black, Chicano, and blue-collar youth in collegc has
also made it increasingly difficult for collcge teachcrs to propagare the
racist and elitist myths of conventional social sciences without incurring

249
 SCHOOLINO IN CAPJTALIST AMERICA

protesl. Yet, in many institutions, large numbers of students with drasti-

cally deficient high-school backgrounds have been confronted by a hostile
or indifferent faculty who are comrnitted to a traditional academic currícu-
lum. Jn these cases, widespread failure among the new students has prob-
ably reinforced discriminatory ideologies.
Lastly, we believe that open enrollment can play a sígnificant role in
unifying workers of diverse social circumstances. The universalization of
higher education breaks down artificial cultural disrinctíons among working
people. More concretely, by vastly increasing the potential numbers oí
beneficiaries of higher education, it strengthens public highcr education in
the politicaJ arena. This can yield direct material benefíts to f aculty as well
as to students already enrolled. Yet tbis is often not the case. I[ state
legislatures and university administrations opt for open enrollment without
augmenting the available resources, the increased size of the student body
will be reflected in heavier course loads for teachers, larger and more
impersonal classes for students, and a heightened probability of blaming
the new students for the "decline in educational quality."
It turns out, then, that this reform-indeed, any reform--cannot be
evaluated in the abstract. It could have strongly inertial consequeoces, but
it need not. A program of open enrol1ment, free tuition, no tracking. cur-
rículum and evaluation procedures appropriate to ali students' needs, sig-
nificantly increased finances, and a critique of ideologies which celebrate
the status quo would indeed constitute a revolutionary reform program.
Essential to the success of the program would be a functioning coalition of
students, teachers, comrnunity groups, and workers' organizations, A sim-
ilar analysis of other egalitarian reforms would reveal, at least in sorne, a
genuinely revolutionary potential.

Free Schools

We refuse to buy the right not lo die of hunger by running

the ri<;k of dying of boredom.
Student Slogan, Paris, 1968

Why saddle our youth with the burden of authoritarian schools? Why ought
the beuer part of a young person's days pass in an atmosphere of power-
lessness, of demeaning and dictatorial rigidity, pcrpctual boredom, and
bchavior modification? Why, in a dernocratic society, sbould an individ-
Educationai A lternatlves

ual's first reaJ contact with a formal institution be so profoundly anti-

democratic?
Many people have been asking these guestions in recent years. Whence
the birtb of a new movement: free school reform. With a heavy intellectual
debt to such venerable thinkers as Paul Goodman and Abraham Maslow,?
a host of poignant interpreters aod critics of modern educatioo have
emerged in ibe pase decade with creative alternatives to the dismal coun-
tenance of tbe school. Ranging from tbe personal diaries of George Denni-
son, James Herndon, Herbert Kohl, aod Jonathan Kozol through the pro-
grarnatic writings of Jobo Holt to the full-fledged social analysis of Charles
Silberman,8 tbe ideas and strategies of these critics have left scarcely a
person involved in education untouched and unmoved.
lndeed, who but the reactionary or ill-informed could disagree with the
ideal of liberated education? Evidently no one. Indeed the politics of free
schools and open classrooms have made strange bedfeUows. Ex-hippies
and well-to-do suburbanites; refugees from tbe radical student movement
and editors of Fortune magazine, T-group psychotherapists, and the Secre-
tary of tbe U.S. Department of Health, Education and Welfare; and from
various other segments of the political spectrum educational liberators find
themselves united by a common vision: a democratic, cooperative, and
unstructured education-a vision of schools that promotes rather than
retards personal development.
Almost too good to be true! Indeed, we believe that the perception of
unity of purpose and clarity of vision is profoundly illusory. The illusion
has taken the reform movement sorne distance. But at a price: failure to
develop a realistic analysis of the class basis of educational repression and
a viable long-range strategy to combat it. We beLieve that these deficiencies
may be overcome-indeed, as they are in the recent writings of Kozol,
Graubard, and other radicals in the movement, Ior exarnple9-and _that the
free-school movement can be transformed into a powerful progressive
force. Wbat this requires is the development within the movement of an
analysis which rejects any notion that schools are independent of society,
an anaJysis wbich places schools concretely in their social and economic
context. The unavoidab]e outcome of such an analysis, we believe, is a
commitment to the transformation of the capitalist economy as the guiding
principie of a revolutionary program for a liberated education.
We will argue for a rejection of the present free-school movement's
economics, its philosophy, and its politics. Our critique of the implicit
economics of the movement is exceedingly simple and fl.ows directly from
the analysis presented in this book. The educationaJ system trains people to
take positions in economic life by patteming its own social relationships
 ..
SCHOOLlNG IN CAPlTALIST AMERICA

after those oí thc office and Iactory. Thus, the repressive aspects oí school-
ing are by no meaos irrational or perverse but are, rather, systematic and
pervasive reflcctions of cconomic reality. By itselí a liberated education will
produce occupational rnisfits and a proliferation of the job blues. Ir will
not by itself contribute to a frccr cxistence because the sources of repres-
sion lic outside the school system. lf schools are to assumc a more humane
form, so, too, rnust jobs.
This econornic reality has implications for the philosophy of education:
The free-school movement must develop an educational philosophy which
recognizes that a liberated educational system must prepare youth for
democracy and participation in economic life. This educational philosophy
-in order to avoid the failures and distortions of earlier Progressive
movements-must be revolutionary and egalitarian. Here we find the prev-
alent ideology of free school reform, with its emphasis on the abolition of
authority and its ideal of tbe unsullied flowering of tbe child's "true inner
self," to be barren and naively individualistic. Dernocracy-particularly
econornic democracy-involves both authority and an intrinsically social
consciousness on the part of individuals. Above all, socialism involves the
will to struggíe as well as the capacity to cooperate. A realistic educational
philosophy must reflect this.
A furtber shortcoming of thc íree-school movement conccrns the manner
in which it treats ( or, to be more precise, ignores) its own class composi-
tion. Its supporters among teachers, students, and parents are drawn from
a rather limited and privileged segment of the popularion. Yet the move-
ment has presented its ideals as universal; it has remained puzzled by its
lack of acceptance by other social groupings-among which oppressed
minorities and the traditional working class are only the rnost obvious. One
political error in this approach is to orient strategy uniquely around gaining
recruits to its ideology, rather Lhan recruiting within itself while developing
working alliances with other classes and groups which have distinct imme-
diate nceds and objectives. A revolutionary transformation and democrati-
zation of econornic life clcarly requires united action of diverse social
groups and classes-e.g., minority groups; white- and blue-collar, and
technical workers; public sector employecs; and the women's movement.
Each of these groups has specific and diverse immediate educational needs
and aspirations. It is hardly surprising that the educational liberation
movernent must also takc the form of a coopcrative (not to say conñict-
Irce ) alliance among groups. What is valid and just Ior one, may be ir-
relevant-al Jeast here and nO\\-for another. This leads to a fundamental
strategic error in a movement which does not recognize its class basis: By
Educational A ltematives

treating its ideas as univcrsally valid and by ignoring its cmergence as a

particular sociohistorical event, the educational liberation movernent loses
pcrspective on the social forces which gave risc to it and which n1ay pro-
mote or hinder its furthcr dcvelopmcnt.
In prcvious chapters, wc have suggestcd a íramcwork Ior anulyzing edu-
cational change which wc bclicvc applicablc to thc contcrnporary rnove-
mcnt for school ref orm. According to this historical intcrprctation of thc
corrcsponc.ling proccsses of economic and cducational change, cvery major
transformation of the cducational systcm and ideology has bccn prccipi-
tated by a shift in thc structure of production, in thc class composition of
thc work force, and in the idcntity oí opprcsscd groups. The bcginnings o[
factory lifc gavc rise to radical workers' moverncnts, to thc nincteenth-
century common school, and to the idcology of mass cducation. The risc of
corporatc capitalism at thc turn of the prescnt century gave birth to the
Progressivc Movement and tbe bureaucratic stratification oí education. Thc
modcrn period involves anothcr basic econornic shift with cducational irn-
plications: tbe prolctarianization of the once-indcpcndcnt non manual pro-
ducers. The rnassive increase in employrnent in the corporate, statc, and
nonprofit scctors oí the ecooomy has eclipsed tbe sclí-employed profes-
sional and the traditional, small-scalc cntrcpreneurial cntcrprisc-the
historical nicbc of tbc indcpendcnt produccr. Thus traditionally elite inde-
pendeot jobs-entrcprcncurial, privileged white-collar, proíessional, and
technical occupations-are reduced to the condition oí wagc labor. No
longcr can profcssional and srnall-busincss peoplc look confidently to a fu-
ture of controlling their work processes, finding crcative outlcts in work, or
holding decísion-rnaking power. Sorne, cxpcriencing a loss in objective
powcr and status, tend to become radicalized. They seck to rcgain the lost
ideal of indepcndence and personal control in sorne sphere of life. Much oí
the siudent movemcnt and youth culture has cmbraccd a kind oí rctrospcc-
tivc radicalism vaunting thc ideals of spontancity and unfettcrcd personal
indepcndcncc. Sorne young profcssionals. too, havc elcvated work auton-
omy and life-stylc individualism to a comrnanding position among their
personal and social objectives. Thcse idcals may be traccd to the aspirations
of thc property-owning class in the epoch of pctty capitalism. J n thc cor-
poratc era. they constitute an anachronism-granlcd an inspiring and
evocativc one-unless altered in ways compatible with the political nccds
for a radical transformation of thc U.S. cconomic and social structure.
But what does ali this imply for educational changc? What is thc poten-
tial of the free-school movcmcnt both to achicve a more humane education
and to contributc to the radical transforrnation of thc structurc of eco-

253
 SCHOOLINO IN CAPITALJST AMERICA

nomic lif e'> As in the case of egalitarian reforrns, our cvaluation rnust be
ambiguous.
Thcrc is a considerable potential for thc assimilation of thc Irce-school
movernent into a program [or the strcamlining and rationalization of the
advanced capitalist order. The ncw corporatc organization itsclf rcquires a
... hift in the social relationships of education. Direct discipline and emphasis
on external rewards, characteristic of the assernbly linc and thc factory
systern, have givcn way for a rnajor scgrncnt of thc work force to motiva-
tion by internalized norrns charactcristic of thc service and office workcr.
Cooperativc rather than individualJy competitive work rclationships are
increasingly emphasized. Entrepreneurial capitalism, whicb brought us thc
chairs-nailed-to-the-Iloor classroom, has gívcn way to corporate capitalism.
It may belatedly ushcr in the era of the open classroom, minirnization of
grading, and internalized behavior norrns contemplated for at lcast a ccn-
tury by so many educational reformers. Thus tbe frce-school movcmcnt
contains elements thoroughly consistent with the modern corporate capital-
ist impcrative for tbe "soft" socialization of at lcast a subsiantial minority
of the workers: whence the strange coalition of corporate and political
lcaders witb free school "radicals." The very rhctoric of cducational lib-
eration-genuinely put Iorth by radicals-can quite easily become the
concrete practice of recasting mucb of the school systern into the mold of
advanced corporate capitalism. As in the case of its inspirational progeni-
tor, the Progressive Movement, thc idcology of cducational liberation can
becomc a tool of dornination.
Yet the revolutionary potcntial of the Irec-scbool movemcnt is substan-
tial, While mucb of thc rhetoric and results of free schooling will be casily
assimilated by the modero corporate and state bureaucracics, much of it
will be difficult to digest. Young people, whose dominant experiences in
school have been coopcrativc, dcmocratic, and substantially participatory,
will find integration into the world of work a wrencbing cxperience. Stu-
dents emerging f rom gcnuinely free schools already know that hierarchical
organization is not thc natural. best, or only form of productivo human
rela tionships.
But it takcs more than personal discontent and job blues to creare a
movernent capa ble of transf orming thc structurc of society. The incom-
patibility of the antiauthoritarian and spontaneous cthic of thc f rce schools
with alienated labor, by itself. hardly provides the basis for a revolutionary
politics. Sorne turn to drugs and self-indulgent consumption, sorne to
countcrculture, sorne scek a back-to-thc-earth or craft solution. and others
develop a pcrsonally and politically destructive sclf-hatred and cynici ... m.

254
Educational Alternatives

The potential revolutionary ímpact of the free school movement will

depend not so rnuch oo its capacity to create miniutopias in our schools as
on its ability to create ao awareness among its participants of wby the
ideals oí the movement caonot be gcnerally realized. To be an cffective tool
for human liberation, free schools must create, not a temporary and privi-
leged oasis of freedom, but an understandiog of oppression and how to
ñght it in capitalist society. Lacking a political understanding of tbeir pre-
dicament, graduales of free schools may well attribute their discontent tó
their own failings, to human nature, or to tbe inevitable requisites of pro-
duction. Yet a politically radical free-school movement could well provide
a seed bed far revolutionaries. Toe content as well as the process of free
scbooling has an important role lo play. Tbe free-school movement must
go beyond life-style radicalism and a preoccupation with educational form
and begin to teach the tools of liberation. Much depends on the develop-
ment of a political self-understanding by the movement itself.
Far from bidding the call of a tirneless universal moral imperative, the
relatively well-off are erecting utopian cducational alternatives in response
to particular historical contradictions in their own lives. These contradic-
tions may not extend to all parts of the working class and to other poten-
tially revolutionary groups. Tt is for this reason that the ideals of free-
school reform may not be embraced by oppressed minorities and groups of
workers proletarianized in earlier periods in U.S. bistory. Tbe once-inde-
pendent professionals and small business people are now part and parcel of
the working class. But tbey must understand that however compatible tbe
types of educational reform tbey envisage are with the long-run objectives
of other potentially revolutionary groups, they are neither moral impera-
tives nor even necessarily attractive to potential allies.
Toe political impact of the free-school movement will depend, in large
measure, on the objectives pursued by scbool reformers, students and
organizations of young white-collar and professional workers. If they act
out the retrospective consciousness of the newly proletarianized nonmanual
workers, if lhey seek to restare their lost privileges in the hierarchy of
production-as independent decision-makers and directors of tbe labor of
others-they will isolate themselves from other workers. Should rhey em-
brace a set of educational goals in reaction only to their own class prcdic-
ament, even if in the names of freedom and humanity, this isolation will be
complete. Conversely, an explicirly politicization of the Iree-school move-
ment, an espousal of a participatory and egalitarian workers' democracy,
and a strategy far alliance witb ali opprcsscd groups may indeed provide a
dynamic basis for the liberation of the schools.

255
 SCHOOLING IN CAPITALJST AMERICA

De-Schooling

... out, out brief candle ....

SHAKCSPfARE's Macbeth

Thc most drastic rccent proposal for ccJucation, and onc with a growing
numbcr of adherents, is that schools be abolished. Tbe popularíty oí this
idea owes much to an eloquent and incisive book, De-Schooling Society by
Ivan Illich. iu In it, Illicb confronts the fulJ spectrum of the modern crisis
in vaJues by rejecting thc basic tenets of progressive liberalism. He dis-
misses what he calls the "myth of consumption" as a cruel and illusory
idcology foisted upoo thc populace by a manipulative bureaucratic system.
He treats welfare and service institutions as part of the problem, not as
part of the solution. He rejects the belicf that education constitutes the
great equalizer and the path to personal liberation. Schools, says Illich,
simply must be eliminated.
Illich does more than merely criticize; be conceptualizes constructive
technological alternatives to repressivc educalion. Moreover, he sees the
preseot age as revolutiooary because the existing social relauonships of
economíc and political life, including the dominant institutional structure
of scbooling, have become impediments to tbe development of libcrating,
socially productive technologies. Here Jllich is relcvant indecd, for the
tensión between technological possibility and social reality pervades ali
advaoced industrial societies today. lllich's response is a forthright vision
of participatory, deeentralized, and liberating learning technologies, and a
radicaUy altcred vision of social relationships in education.
Yet, while his description of modero society is sufficiently incisive, bis
analysis is, we bclieve, inadequate, and bis program, consequently, is a
diversion from thc imrnensely complcx and demanding political, organiza-
tion, intellcctual, and personal dernands of revolutionary reconstruction in
tbe coming dccades. lt is crucial that educators and students who have
been auracted to him-for his rncssage does correspond to our personal
frustration and disillusionment-move beyond this program.
Educational reformcrs commonly err by treating the system of scbools
as if it cxistcd in a social vacuum. lllich docs not make this rnistake.
Rathcr, be vicws the interna! irrationalities of modero cducalion as rcñec-
tions of thc larger society. The key to understanding the problems of
advanccd industrial cconornies, he argues, líes in Lhe charactcr of its con-
sumption activities and tbc icJcology wbich supports them. The schools, in
Educational A lternatives

turn, are cxcmplary rnodcls of burcaucracies gearcd toward thc indoctrina-

tion oí docilc and manipulable consumcrs.
Guiding modcrn social lif e and interpersonal bchavior, says Illich, is a
destruciive systern of "lnstirutionallzcd valúes" wbich determines how onc
pcrccivcs onc's nceds and defines instrumcnts for onc's satisfaction, Tbe
process wbich creares institutional valucs insurcs that ali individual nceds
-ph)sical, psychological, social, intellectual, emotional, and spiritual-
are transformed into dernands for goods and scrvices. Jn contrast to thc
"psychological impotcncc" which rcsults from institutionalized valucs, 11-
lich envísagcs che "psychic health" wbicb emerges from self-realization-e-
both personal and social. Guidcd by institutionalizcd values, onc's wcll-
being lies not in what one does but in what one has-the status of one's job
and thc lcvcl of material consumption. For the active person, goods are
mcrely meaos to, or instrumcnts in, the performance of activities: far thc
passive consumcr, howcvcr, goods are ends in themsclves and activity is
merely the meaos toward sustaining or displaying a desired leve! of con-
surnption. Thus, institutionalizcd values manifest thcmsclves psychologi-
cally in a rigid [etisbism of commoditics and public scrvices. Illicb's vision
rests on the ncgation of comrnodity Ietishism: 11

I believe that a desirable future depends on our deliberately ... engendering a

lifc style which will enable us to be spontaneous, independeot, yet related to
each other, rather lban maintaining a life style which only allows us to make
and unmake, produce and consume.P

Cornmodity fetishism is institutionalizcd in two senses. First, thc "deliv-

ery systems" in modero industrial cconomies (i.c., the supplicrs of goods
and services ) are huge, burcaucraiic institutions which treat individuals as
mere reccptors for their products. Goods are supplied by hicrarchical and
impersonal corporate entcrprises, while services are provided by welfare
bureaucracics which cnjoy " ... a professional, political and financia! mon-
opoly ovcr the social imagination, seuing standards of what is valuable and
what is feasible .... A whole society is initiatcd into the Myth of Unending
Consumption of Scrviccs. "13
Sccond, commodity fetishism is institutionalized in the sensc that the
values of passive consumerism are induced and rcinforced by the same
delivery systcms whose ministrations are substitutos íor sclf-initiated
activitics .

. . . Mampulative institutions are either socially ar psychologically "addic-

tive." Social addiction consists in tbe tendency to prescribe increased
treatment if smaller quantities have not yieldcd the desired results. Psycho-

257
 SCHOOLING IN CAPITALIST AMERICA

logical addiction ... results when consumers become hooked on the need for
more and more of the process or product.v'

These delivery systems, moreover, " ... botb invite compulsively repetitive
use and frustrate alternative ways of achieving similar results." For exam-
ple, General Motors and Ford:

.. produce meaos of transportation, but Lhey also, and more imporlantly,

manipulate public laste in such a way that the need for transportation is ex-
pressed as a demand for privare cars rather than public buses. They sell tbe
desire to control amachine, to race at high speeds in luxurious comfort, while
also oflering the fantasy at the end of the road.15

This analysis of addictive manipulation in private production is, of

course, well-developed in the literaturc. lllich's contribution is to extend it
to the sphere of service and welfare bureaucracies:

Finally, teachers, doctors and social workers realize that their distinct profes-
sional ministrations have one aspect-at least-in common. They create fur-
ther dernands for the institutional treatments they provide, faster than they
can provide service insti tutions.w

The well-socialized naturally react to these failures simply by increasing

tbe power and juriscliction of welfare institutions. Illich 's reaction, of
course, is precisely tbe contrary.
As the basis for bis educatiooal proposals, Illich's overall framework
bears clase attention. Since commoclity Ietishism is basically a psychologi-
cal stance, it must first be attacked on an individual rather than a political
level. For Illicb, eacb individual is responsible for bis or her own dernystifi-
cation. Tbe institutionalization of valucs occurs, not througb externa! cocr-
cion, but tbrough psychic manipulation, so its rejection is an apolítica! act
of individual will. The movement for social change thus becomes a cultural
one of raising consciousness.
But even on this level, política} action in the form of negating psychic
manipulation is crucial. Goods and services as well as welfare bureaucra-
cies must be prohibited from disseminating fetishistic values. lndeed, this is
the basis for a political program of de-scbooling. The educational system,
as a coercive source of institutionalized values, must be deníed its preferred
status. Presumably, this politics of negatioo would extend to advertising
and ali other types of psychic manipulation.
Since the concrete social manifestatíon of commodity fetishism is a
grossly inflated level of production and consumption, the second step in
Illich's _political program is the substitution of leisure for work. Work is
evil for Illicb-unrewarding by its very nature-aod not to be granted the
status of "activity":
Educational A lternatives

... "making and acting" are different, so different, in fact that one never in-
eludes the other .... Modern technology has increased the ability of man to
relinquish the "making" of things to machines, aod his potential time for
"acting" has increased .... Uneroployment is the sad idleness of a man who,
contrary to Aristotle, believes that making things, or working, is virtuous
and that idleness is bad.t?
Again, Illich's shift in the work-leisure choice is basically apolítica! and
will follow naturaUy from the abolition of value indoctrination. People
work so hard and long because tbey are taught to believe the fruits of their
activities-consumption-are intrinsically worthy, Elimination oí the
"hard sell pitch" of bureaucratic institutions will allow individuals to dis-
cover within themselves the falsity of the doctrine.
The third stage in Illich's political program envisages the necessity of
concrete change in social delivery systerns. Manipulative institutions must
be dismantled and replaced by organizational forms which allow for the
free development of individuals. lllich caUs such institutions "convivía!"
and associates them with leftist political orientation.
The regulation of convivial institutions sets limits to their use; as one moves
from the convivía! to the roanipulative end of the spectrurn, the rules pro-
gressively call for unwiUing consumption or participation .... Toward, but
not at, tbe left on the institutional spectrum, we can locate enterprises which
compete with others in their own fíeld, but have not begun notably to engage
in advertising. Here we find hand laundries, small bakeries, hairdressers,
and-to speak of professionals-some lawyers and music teachers .... They
acquire clients through their personal toucb and the comparative quality of
their services.t"

In short, Illich's Good Society is based on small-scale entrepreneurial

( as opposed to corporate) capitalism, witb competitive markets in goods
and services. The role of govemment in thís society is the prevention of
manipulative advertising; the development of left-convivial technologies
compatible with self-initiating, small-group welfarc institutions ( education,
health and medica! services, crime prevention and rehabílitation, corn-
munity development, and so on); and the provisioning of the social infra-
structure ( e.g., pu blic transportation). Illich's proposal for "lcaming
webs" and "skill exchanges" in education is only a particular application of
this vision of left-convivial technologies.
Illich's mode1 of consumption manipulation is crucial at every stage of
bis political argument. But it is substantially incorrect. First, Jllicb locales
the source of social decay in the autonomous, manipulative bebavior of
corporate bureaucracies. However, as we have argued, the source must be
sought in the normal operation of tbe basic economic institutions of capi-
talism which consistently sacrifice the healthy devclopment of work, educa-
 SCHOOLil'iG IN CAPITALIST AMERICA

tion, and social equality lo tbc accumulation of capital and the requisites of
thc hierarchical division of labor. Moreover, gívcn that individuals must
participate in economic activity, these social outcomcs are quite inscnsitive
to thc prefercnces or values of individuals, and are certainly in no scnse a
reflection of the autonornous wills of manipulating bureaucrats or gulliblc
consumcrs. Hcncc, mcrely cnding rnanipulation whilc maintaining basic
economic institutions will affcct social life only minirnally.
Second, lllich locales thc source of consumer consciousncss in thc ma-
nipulative socialization of individuals by agencies controllcd by corporate
and welfare bureaucracics. This institutionalizcd consciousness induces
individuals to choose outcomes not in conformity with tbeir real needs. Yet
a causal analysis can nevcr take socialization agencies as basic explanatory
variables in assessing the overall bchavior of the social system. In particular,
consumer consciousness is generated through the day-to-day activities and
observations of individuals in capitalist society. The sales pitches of man-
ipulativc institutions do not produce thc values of commodity fetishisrn, but
rather capitalize on and reinforce the values and anxieties derived from
and reconfirmed by daily personal experience in the social system. In íact.
while consumer behavior may seem irrational and fetishistic, it is a reason-
able accommodation to the options for meaningful social outlets in the con-
text of capitalist institutions. Driving an oversizcd car may be one of the
few experienccs of personal power available in a world of alienated labor
and fragmented comrnunity. Owning a late model convertible probably docs
enhance one's love life, or _at least provide a subslitute for one. Therefore the
abolition of addictive propaganda cannot Jiberatc the individual to "free
choice" of personal goals. Such choice is still conditioned by the pattern of
social processes which have historically rendered individuals arnenablc to
"institutionalized \ aiues." In Iact, the likcly outcome of dernanipulation of
values would be no significant alteration of thcse valucs at ali.
Moreovcr, the ideology of commodity fetishism reflects not only the day-
to-day opcrations of thc economy. It is also a necessary condition for the
profitability of capitalisrn as a systcm in thc long run. Commodity fctishism
motivates meo and women to accept and participate in the systern of
alienated production, to pcddle their ( potcntially) creative activitics to the
highest bidder through the market in labor, to accept and participare in the
dcstruction of thcir communities. and to bcar allcgiancc to an economic
system whose markct institutions and pauerns of control of work and
community systcmatically subordinate all social goals to the criteria of
profit. Thus, the wcakening in institutionalizcd values would, in itsclf. lcad
logically either to unproductive and undirectcd social chaos or to a rejcc-

260