E DUCATION : A V EHICLE FOR S OCIAL C HANGE OR R EPRODUCTION ?

The theories of French philosopher and sociologist, Pierre Bourdieu, provide valuable insight into the role of education in society. Bourdieu’s writings

emphasize the reproductive function of education (Grenfell and James 1998). A major challenge for Western societies is the need to balance sustainability and economic growth – the eternal dilemma of sustainable development that needs to be tackled when educating young people. Should schools encourage students to accept the status quo or to challenge the explanations and solutions of the dominant discourse? New global challenges require new solutions. At the same time a certain degree of social cohesion is necessary to implement sound and lasting solutions.

Bourdieu’s research on education in the 1960s was the vanguard of the development of a new era of sociology of education. This new approach questioned the post-Second World War legacy that presupposed that natural talent was randomly distributed genetically throughout the population. Bourdieu did not believe in any innate abilities within people. Instead, pedagogical practice had to become sociologically aware so that the process of teaching could engage with people’s actual, often culturally determined, capabilities to learn. By

outlining the social circumstances which create the educational systems which socially influence our thinking, Bourdieu argued that people can transcend

constraining social conditions precisely if they are able to recognize them as such (Robbins 1991).

The identification of social conditions is central to Bourdieu’s notion of habitus. Habitus refers to how people’s perception of themselves and their

surroundings is shaped by social factors from the past and the present. But it also

works the reverse way; social conditions are produced by people (Johannesson and Popkewitz 2001). The educational system is an example of how Bourdieu’s notion of habitus works. At the same time as students are conditioned by the educational system, this system itself is a product of a particular social condition (Broady and Palme 1985).

Since the 1800s, the educational system has been one of the most

important factors for creating social mobility and justice. Bourdieu stresses the social reproductive function of education. This is illustrated in his definition of education: “Education, considered as the process through which a cultural arbitrary is historically reproduced through the medium of the production of the habitus productive of practices conforming with that cultural arbitrary…”

(Bourdieu and Passeron 1977:32). In the process of reproducing a cultural arbitrary education is engaging in what Bourdieu refers to as “symbolic

violence.” Symbolic violence entails being able to make a social order appear as natural without using physical violence, but using more subtle forms of power such as information and societal structures (Wilken 2006:81-85).

The notion of symbolic violence indicating that a small elite consciously plans to indoctrinate its subjects with a particular perception of reality seems like a far-fetched idea in the context of the Norwegian educational system. I believe the Norwegian public sphere consists of a multitude of different impulses, actors and ideas – all of which influence what is taught in school. The Norwegian authorities are of course in a special position to determine the national

educational structure, economic situation and curricula, but these authorities exist in a democratic system and must be responsive to voters, the media and civil society. Also, I have a problem with the use of the concept “violence” in this context. A somewhat “frivolous” use of the concept might contribute to losing the meaning of what violence is.

Though the notion of “symbolic violence” is a radical and simplistic perception of how cultural leaders assert their authority, Bourdieu’s notion of

habitus is a valuable framework for understanding the Norwegian educational system’s role in society. Schools do not exist in bubbles: The norms and values of society are shaping the way that the educational system works and the content of education. Education thereby exerts a reproductive function by reproducing dominant value systems and beliefs. Hence, we need to acknowledge that education takes place in a culturally and politically specific context. Students need to be made aware of the social and cultural constructions around them.

Moreover, education must encourage students to evaluate whether the particular context they find themselves in is compatible with a sustainable future.

The need for a recovery of the ideological critique in education is put forward by several educational theorists (Collins 2003:68). The ideological critique in education is an essential inclusion in a world that faces huge environmental challenges at the same time as economic growth acts as the primary development path. One of these theorists is C.A. Bowers who calls for a heightened awareness of how cultural beliefs and practices, passed through by education, relate to the ecological crisis. He maintains that the most fundamental challenge we face in combating current environmental problems has to do with our cultural beliefs, which contribute to the accelerating degradation of the environment. Despite this, the education-culture-environment connection is largely overlooked (Bowers 1993).

Bower claims that educational systems in the West are based on the rational tradition of 17^th and 18^th century thinkers such as Descartes, Locke and Cassirer. As a result, education perpetuates cultural patterns of individualism, rational thinking and a dualistic worldview that distances man from nature.

Bower contends that we need to change fundamental aspects of our belief systems and patterns of social life in order to achieve this goal. That we are still Cartesian thinkers is reflected in the way we frame the ecological crisis as a rationalistic and measurable problem, while references to culture is lacking. The educational system has a special importance in the ecological crisis because the socialization of students involves encountering in a more systematic way the

language and conceptual frameworks that underpin the mainstream culture (Bowers 1993:1-34). Thus, including awareness of one’s own habitus could be a valuable contribution to education for sustainable development. This would entail an educational model that questions the dominant belief systems and fosters students to reconsider socially accepted patterns that are incompatible with a sustainable future.